shoreboy profile

How could they not have capitalized on this by using Trek rather than Bontrager for the name for this? :)

What happens when you need to remove your grips for some reason?  What do you have to do to break them free of whatever adhesive you have used? Are the grips easy to re-install after removal?

The lowers are all the same AFAIK. They say 'torque cap compatible' but will still take a normal hub cap. Apparently wheels are easier to install if you have torque caps, and give a larger mating surface. Ive never had any issue with non-torque cap wheel installs, so Im not sure why they even exist.  Apart from the marketing gimmick of 'stiffness' I would presume.

I think you are converting to CDN, while the article is being written in USD. Using Jenson as your source:

Rear hub = ~$460US (microspline or HG cuz Shimano rules)

Front hub = ~$181US (on sale right now!)

Stans Flow = $100US x 2

Spokes = Lets say $1 each? Nipples $0.20 each? = ~$80

Total = $921

Granted this doesnt include the build, but I would be doing that myself.

You've got some 28H CK hubs you can put on there?

For that same ~$900 ill take my CK hubs on Stan's Flow MK3 any day of the week. The set will be lighter than these as well.

I was eyeing up the hex equivalent to replace my aging Park P-handle set (the ones with the blue grip), as some of the heads are rounded out a bit with use. To my surprise, there is no 'ball-head' end on the new tools. I find the ball head end useful for getting those bolts out that you cant always get to at a straight shot. As pretty as they are, I think they missed the mark on the hex ones too. Ill likely look elsewhere to replace my set, or replace it with the same set, which Park still sells as well.

PS I still own a bike that uses T-40 for some of the pivot hardware, so those fittings are out there!

Thanks SRAM!  A release like this further consolidates my preference to run Shimano.

So they want me to buy a new RD to get 2 more teeth AND a ridiculously large jump up to the granny?

Are you saying you cannot hear an e-bike coming up behind you? The sound of the motor is unmistakable.

Awesome to see all these companies chipping in for the greater good! Kudos to all them for helping out.

Just a nitpick at some of the message being sent. The last pic of the guy with the faceshield from SC. Looks like a well designed piece. If you are going to show someone wearing PPE as an advertisement for your product, please show them wearing it correctly.  The N95 mask he is wearing is not going to work as it is supposed to if worn like that.

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

Posted by: shoreboy

If you are capable of finding that article, you are also capable of reading the discussion with possible explanations for the decline.

I'm not sure we've seen any evidence to support this theory.

The theories discussed in the CDC article? They arent definitive explanations, but they do show the factors that could somewhat explain the drop in flu numbers.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Here, let me help with that... From the CDC:

influenza activity decreased 98%, from a median of 19.34% to 0.33% of submitted respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza. Interseasonal circulation of influenza in the United States (May 17–August 8, 2020; weeks 21–32) is now at historical lows (weekly median 0.20% of samples testing positive in 2020 versus 2.35% in 2019, 1.04% in 2018 and 2.36% in 2017).

And here's Fauci on masks, March 2020:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/05/12/flashback_march_2020_fauci_says_theres_no_reason_to_be_walking_around_with_a_mask.html?jwsource=cl

That's nice, but what do you think the relevance is? Simply stating a piece of info doesn't actually explain your position or the point you're trying to make here.

What is your point about flu numbers for this year being abnormally low?

Its bordering rhetorical but where did the flu cases go? Down 98%?

If you are capable of finding that article, you are also capable of reading the discussion with possible explanations for the decline.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Anyone else see something like this?

Nope. The CDC website still says it is airborne. That is some old news I believe.

Posted by: switch

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: switch

It has 1000 lb/ft of torque.

AVAILABLE

1,000 HORSEPOWER

AND 11,500 LB-FT OF TORQUE†

And if they put bigger wheels on the thing they could claim even more torque.

Every company measures torque at the crank, not the wheels. This is marketing BS.

The headlights/taillights will indicate how much the battery is charged...

Yeah that is a good point. Not sure why they are claiming wheel torque. I guess its to compete (marketing wise) with Tesla's claim of 10,000 lb-ft for the new roadster. You are correct in the ~1000 lb-ft of motor torque (335lb-ft from each of the 3 motors).

Posted by: tashi

GM is probably the last (or second to last) company I’d buy a high-tech vehicle from, but this and the Atlis have me hoping that there will be a “reasonably” priced electric truck coming.

Four doors, 5ish foot box, AWD and 5 seconds to 60 without the luxury trappings of a Rivian or Tesla and I’m happy.  Could possibly even convince the wife to trade the Atlas for something like that.

I’d totally go for the Cybertruck or Bollinger if I miraculously become wealthy though. Both of those look fucking awesome.

All hopes of reasonably priced are out the window. Rumour is base MSRP will be $112k USD.

Posted by: switch

It has 1000 lb/ft of torque.

AVAILABLE

1,000 HORSEPOWER

AND 11,500 LB-FT OF TORQUE†

Looks like GMC is jumping in to the EV pickup truck market in a big way:

https://www.gmc.com/electric-truck/hummer-ev

Ive been waiting for that next vehicle that has 11,500 ft/lb of torque...

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly. It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

It's relevant to this thread.

If you say so. Most comparisons between the flu and Covid (in terms of mortality, reproduction number etc.) are false narratives, but Id be interested to hear what relevance you think there might be.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: tungsten

https://commonground.ca/covid-19-5000-shades-of-grey/

Comment from the health pro's?

Koch's postulates were formed before we knew about viral diseases. They do not apply in many cases of viral disease, so using them in this article as a backbone to their commentary is flawed.

As for the tests, the theory of RT-PCR is correctly summarized, but how it is used in practice varies greatly.  It definitely isnt a perfect test for the situation we are in, but im OK with having a few false positives vs false negatives for now.

Why not look at the Flu numbers for the past year?

How is this relevant to the above article that is being discussed?

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: shoreboy

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

This is going around the internet, if it didnt have an FDA link I wouldnt post it. (Bottom of) Page 39 of this link says:

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with... 

Im not sure what your point here is? The sequence of the virus is well known. You do not need actual virus to create assays to detect the virus. Yay science!

... My point is - does one not need a virus for a pandemic? Does an assay test show ongoing infection? To my knowledge, since it a cultured blood sample, it just shows the presence of... something? And, do you not need a virus isolate to know what you're looking for?

One does not need a virus to create an assay when the sequence is already known. The virus would have been isolated in order to get its genomic sequence initially.  Keeping live virus stocks around is difficult and unnecessarily dangerous.  The current test used will show that there are viral RNA particles circulating in the sample. It means that sample is currently infected with or has recently been infected with the virus of interest. There are plenty of immunology and genomics sources out there to understand how this all works. The assay targets a specific RNA sequence from the virus of interest, so there is little to no chance you are assaying for some other pathogen.