New posts

MikeyOrange's posts

189 posts found

Feb. 23, 2017, 10:47 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Dreaming of an aggressive 29er for the North Shore and PNW

Thanks for repeating what I wrote. Take your time next time.

You should take your time… for someone with an obvious superior intellect you wrote saddle rails… not very fastidious on that one now, was it?

I see you touting you're a custom bike designer on PB, would we know any of your wonderful creations? Why don't you try said bikes with grossly slack STAs you're talking about prior to making assumptions about their abilities… can't get causality from correlation now can we? (Again rhetorical question…. all my questions were other than your "designs")

Here's a definition of rhetorical because you didn't seem to grasp it the first time:

(of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information

Jan. 28, 2017, 1:23 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Dreaming of an aggressive 29er for the North Shore and PNW

It is grossly slack when you actually put the saddle up to pedalling position and it is 70 degrees. The 73.7 is the effective seat tube angle when the saddle rails are in line with the top of the headtube. The actual angle is very slack likely in the mid 60 deg range so when you raise the saddle the esta is slacker as you go up.

For an XL the esta is basically when the saddle is dropped almost all the way down. Enough with the geometry lesson though - when you don't get it I guess you don't get it.

WRONG! the stated ESTA is the point at which the angle created from the middle of the BB dissects the midline of the actual seattube angle at the point parallel to the middle of the centre of the top of the headtube… the seat rails have no affect on the measurement of this angle… But when you don't get it, I guess you don't get it!

Also, it's trigonometry not just geometry: some basic math can give you an estimate providing a couple assumptions. Main assumption is that the diagram provided by Norco is a good approximation of an XL frame (big if because who knows what size it's based on)

I'll do some rudamentary math below for a 37" inseam that jbv quoted… feel free to use my math and figure out your value based on your own seat height measurement (remember again, assumptions are being made)

ESTA is at the stack height… 620mm
ST is 510mm
37" inseam = 939.8mm = ~940mm (I'll make a few other approximations)
crankarm length 175mm
estimated extended length at seat provided shoe + pedal is 15mm thick (this value is likely higher for most) = 940 - 175 - 15 = 750mm

root of (TTH-Reach)^2 + S^2 = root(182^2 + 620^2) = ~646mm at ESTA

750 - 646 = 104mm of post extending past ESTA height.

This is where assumption of diagram being accurate to a XL frame sizing come in:

ESTA appears to be inline with edge of ST, ST is probably 34.9mm thick (assumption #2)… lets assume over the ESTA height minus ST height that the post moves rearward half the distance of the ST thickness (Aft) = 17.45mm over a length 136mm (ESTA height minus ST)

So extended height minus ST = 750 - 520 = 230 = Visible post (VP)

VP divided by actual length of post at ESTA multiplied by Aft measurement = distance behind ESTA line at the top of the seat in the middle of the actual line created by the seattube

230/136 x 17.45mm = 29.5mm

So if you had a 37" inseam… the seat would sit 3cm behind the ESTA line… Depending on your saddle position, you should easily be able to make up 1.5-2+cm forward on the rails.

I can't see how this could put you at a ST in the mid 60 degrees… unless you have a mid 40" inseam…

Even if the Aft measurement was another 5mm longer it would put you at ~38mm behind the ESTA line. 10mm would be 46.4mm

Again, you can always decrease these values by moving the saddle forward on the seatrails.

I'm just wondering if anyone has had a chance to ride a 2017 29er Sight yet? All the speculating at number crunching won't serve any good until someone is ACTUALLY RIDING THE BIKE…

Jan. 26, 2017, 10:32 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Dreaming of an aggressive 29er for the North Shore and PNW

Wrong, Gravity Tune is based on a standing position not sitting. It is for going down not going up.

Making a minutely longer rear centre (5mm from L to XL) does not balance out a grossly slack STA.

Wow… thanks Donald Trump… when has 73.7 been considered "grossly slack "? (Rhetorical question)

Jan. 26, 2017, 11:23 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Dreaming of an aggressive 29er for the North Shore and PNW

By my understanding, that's exactly what Gravity Tune fixes. The rear of the bike lengthens on larger sizes so that the rider's centre of mass remains centered.

Correct! You're in virtually the same position with each size relative to your size… which is why STA change. Talk with anyone that owns a newer Norco with the gravity tune and they'll usually tell you it's the best fitting bike they've ever owned straight out of the box.

I'm definitely going to try the 650b and 29er Sight when I can.

And for people wanting something more aggressive, wait for the Range

Dec. 21, 2016, 3:26 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Ideal north shore do it all bike

Not a single mention of the Transition Patrol… it won a certain electronic publications bike of the year recently because it does everything well. Can be had in alu or carbon in a variety of budgets.

I'd also wait and see what the new Sights will be like… they're only a month or two away and sound like they'll be amazing.

Nov. 11, 2016, 12:33 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Alternatives to 29er Pikes...

dude at the LBS told me they will be carbon only for the 29" Sight and Range when they are released the start of 2017 . the Sight peaks my interest as well if they keep similar geo to the 27.5 model , the Range IMO is gonna be racked out like the Slash and the new Slayer , to me they are lightened up park bikes and I want a trail shredder for up and down

Not sure which shop you go to but carbon will be in 29 and 650b… aluminum will be available in both as well. Or, do you mean that the Alu version will be later than the carbon for the 29ers? Alus are already out in 650b.

The 29er versions run 10mm less travel font and rear for the Range 170/160mm for 650b and 160/150mm 29er; I forget the Sight but I think it follows the same formula 150/140mm 650b and 140/130mm 29er. I wouldn't bet on the Range being too racked out either… from what I recall the HA was slightly steeper for the 29er, between 0.5-1 degrees… they'll be having demo days from what I heard last and you can actually ride the bike before coming to a conclusion…

Also, depending on the size, it'll be released at different times; pretty sure that earliest is January/Feb for the Med/Large then XL and last release is the small size. Forget dates.

Oct. 28, 2016, 12:16 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
The Evil Thread

Yes on my radar , only issue is they are Carbon fiber only , and I don,t feel I need the bling bling of a carbon ride .

As for it being a Norco for me it,s more of dealing with the shops that carry the line now , not the company.

I don't have anything wrong with North Shore Bike Shop… Go talk to Matt and check the 2017 catalog out… I saw a prototype 9.1 on the back of a car this past weekend and it looked awesome!

Sept. 8, 2016, 8:16 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
2017 Norcos - Where is the carbon

I noticed that the 2017 Carbon sights and ranges are missing from the website and was surprised. Still coming? Anyone know? The aluminum models look to have better value than last year.

Wait for Interbike… there's some new stuff

Aug. 31, 2016, 8:41 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Banshee bikes

I think they burned a LOT of bridges when they left a lot of customers high and dry with the old generation bikes and their bushing issues.

The dropping of the brand had nothing to do with the bushing issue.

Aug. 30, 2016, 10:59 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
Banshee bikes

Banshee had a North American distributor that was based out of North Vancouver up until a year ago. Banshee have decided to go Dealer Direct (sell directly to the bike shops), which should help their pricing become a little more competitive.

Banshee are now in the process of setting up their own North American offices, there was a small gap in availability, but you should start seeing Banshee again soon in your local bike shops.

Having seen, dealt and heard things very candidly from an owner of a local shop that used to sell Banshees, I will never be purchasing another Banshee unless things dramatically change with their customer service department. I doubt that a lot of shops will either; which is a pitty, as I've owned 3 Banshees: an original Spitfire which I absolutely loved, same for a Legend MKII, and currently have an Amp.

The same shop believes that the bikes are good and really like Keith.

I have a feeling that Banshee will start directly selling bikes online to customers.

July 11, 2016, 4:17 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
2009 Rockshox WC repair or replace???

Fluid Function in Squamish. A+ review for their service.

Highly recommended for any Rockshox.

Or is it time to just get something newer?


Yes, putting another $160+ (probably at least $200) into your fork probably isn't be worth it; it's a old chassis. But it also depends on your situtation. I'd take the money and put it into a newer used fork, then sell your fork for parts.

July 5, 2016, 5:31 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
CF vs HG Aluminum

It's pretty fun that so many bikes have gotten so good that we've sort of run out of issues to debate. :) "Yeah, this 5 star out of this world awesome Patrol has…uh…uh…oh the BB is maybe 4mm too low :lol: Life is good

Make sure that you have 35% sag seated, there's a pdf HERE that describes the method they suggest to use.

So many good bikes out.

July 3, 2016, 2:47 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
CF vs HG Aluminum

Interestingly, and topical, dude came along and put a Transition Patrol on my busses bike rack this evening at Phibbs.
So we chatted.
Seems as though the issues with bb height affecting customer satisfaction are not limited to the Scout as his size XL Patrol came from factory spec'd with 165mm cranks. On an XL.
I suspect that being a small fish in a big sea, something is going on with their fabricator they cannot or will not deal with.
So I take back what I said, DemonMike. Don't buy a Patrol either.

BB height on the Patrol is slightly taller than the new Reign… trend is lower and Transition is definitely not the lowest out there. BB height on the 2016 Scout increased by 5mm. Also, the only bike speced from Transition with 165mm cranks are the TR500s… Scouts and Patrols are 170mm in all sizes, they were 175mm in 2015; if he did have 165mm cranks, it never came that way from the Transition.

I would suggest to anyone interested in a Transition go and talk with the guys at NSBS or give one a test ride directly from the Transition factory in Bellingham, they also do a demo day or two a in our area each year… I did in the fall and was blown away by the Patrol… Carbon one being built in the next few days.

To the OP, congrats on the new bike!

June 26, 2016, 8:38 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
CF vs HG Aluminum

Rocky Mountain Altitude Rally
Giant Reign has been mentioned a few times
Santa Cruz

The bikes that have really got my interest are: (absolute killer component spec, I love the 135/150mm) (this one's cheaper, longer travel, CF with decent comp.spec)

I get pretty good deals on bikes through a friend/client of mine… His shop(s) carry RM, Giant, SC. But even with the deal I get, by the time I add tax and everything onto the purchase, I can't shake the build, reviews, and apparent quality of these "Vitus" bikes. Obviously sold by CRC, but they're just dope. And for the record, I really like the 135mm rear, 150 front style setup. I don't want more than that unless absolutely necessary - my goal is cardio and endurance rides with great technical sections; not so much DH NS style hammering, but just awesome hauls and lung busters.

Does this help??
LOVE these Vitus bikes!!!! :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:


Personally after riding an RM Altitude, I'd never buy one, just doesn't feel right to me but might fit your demands for a pedally longish travel bike… it felt too XC oriented for my tastes.
SC bikes seem to be overpriced, but granted, are nice.
Giant seems to be good value for money but the Reign doesn't really sound like what you're looking for.
I also don't see value in Trek bikes.

Vitus, like said before, will also have a 13% duty, plus 5% taxes and the value starts to go away. Of those two the CF bike is very similarly speced for a lot less. But if you have any problems, you're going to be waiting, and probably a long time.

Take a look at the Devinci Troy, Transition Scout/Patrol; these are very local and offer some pretty awesome values in my opinion; North Shore Bike Shop, where Transition is locally sold in large amounts, offers some great service too… Scouts start at $3450 and Patrols at $3350. The Troy RS is a pretty good value too and can be found at a few locations.

Regardless of your choice, you'll get a good bike.

June 25, 2016, 3:34 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Sept. 30, 2006
CF vs HG Aluminum

I am certain during my absence this discussion festered along at a wondrous pace… But I need to know.

I leave - everyone's stoked on their aluminum bikes, hydraulic seatposts were just becoming common, "all-mountain" was "the" category that was happenin', and "Poc" was still a questionable brand LOL. CF was relegated to the roadie sect, pieces of it were finding their way to MTBs. An expensive bike was $6000 give or take, a decent bike had for $4500. Totally good.

I get back, ask around for some suggestions, find out top-drawer is running in the $10K bracket. I laugh. I research. My jaw drops. Ya, top-drawer bikes are up into that range - not all of them - but many… And other top name brands are offering in the $7000 range. I've accepted this.

But here's the question… Steeds at equal peggings in the reviews sections; write ups; price point; category; some are CF some are high-grade aluminum. Some of my friends say CF is tits because it's so light and stiff a definite must have man!!!; other friends are telling me it don't matter sh!t unless I care about the weight of a water bottle and granola bar making the difference between frame weight from CF to aluminum and that it's just the latest craze and reason to boost pricing..

I'm not weight-widdler, my last AM bike rolled in at 31.5 lbs or thereabouts, maybe 32.5lbs. I didn't care. I rocked up and it rocked down. So this is where I'm coming from… I've got a chance now to buy one of 2 bikes - they're practically equal - the "enduro" fully outfitted with CF and 8.5/10 component spec is $700 cheaper than the aluminum "aggressive trail" that's got a 10/10 component spec. So ya, the CF in this case is cheaper than the aluminum - should I even care???

Does is really matter - what are the benefits - are than any benefits - one better than the other - if so how - should I care.

The Dirtiest of Sanchez' comin' atcha!!

Tell us what bikes you're considering? It will help.

There are quite a few bikes in the $3700-4000 range that you could happily ride without changing anything… Or at least only a few parts.

CF vs Alu: Components are easily replaceable, frames are not. Some bikes there are definitely an advantage to going with one over the other and some bikes are more related to vanity. If you're friends are all telling you that carbon is a must… totally disagree and my last two bikes have been carbon.

Getting an 8.5/10 now would have been like getting a 13/10 bike last time you checked in. Take the extra $700 and invest in custom tuning for your suspension, or upgrade to the top tier of suspension, and save money for a bike trip.

189 posts found

Forum jump: