D_C_ profile

@Jerry sticky pistons are a common overlooked issue as well that impact performance on Codes.

Except in a racing setting, where equipment choices are dictated by FIS rules, there seems to be a move away from punishing, ‘high performance’ skis. For example, Dynastar FWT athletes are choosing the 192 M-Free 108 over the M-Pro/Legend Pro 105, which is the purpose-built comp ski. I would guess that having a ski that responds when pushed hard but also won’t kill you makes it easier to push it even harder.

There is certainly something to be said for pulling out the GS skis on empty runs with hard snow, though.

I agree with most of it. The one I’d debate is tubeless - for a casual, less maintenance-Inclined rider, tubes have some advantages. They hold air longer than tubeless, so you don’t have to be as religious about getting the pump out every ride. And there’s no sealant to dry out over time. For someone who is lighter and/or less aggressive, they can get away with tubes without frequent pinch flats.

@Timer - that was my thought, too. I suspect a good proportion of $1500 mountain bikes will see only occasional use, never on dirt. Such a customer does not desire to have the knowledge that proper pedals are necessary, and least they will leave the shop with an operable bike.

The leverage ratio on the old 134 was pretty flat (about 9% progression). At least on paper, it looks like it's better suited to an air shock. https://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2015/05/kona-process-134-2015.html

Thanks for looking into this. From what I was able to determine, bladders on the original Charger dampers were officially replaceable, whereas Charger 2 and 2.1 are not (I spoke to a certain well-regarded RS service centre north of North Vancouver). You can find replacement bladders from various suspension service centres if you look around, but those bladders are not officially available from RS. The response I got was that the damper needs to go back for warranty.

But maybe I'm wrong and just didn't talk to the right people.

It’s ridiculous. For example, I recently discovered that Rockshox Charger 2.1 dampers are not officially serviceable, and if you do something like tear a bladder (not an uncommon issue), the official fix is a whole new $500 damper rather than a $30 part. 

If you ride a lot, serviceability should definitely be a consideration. Everything breaks eventually.

I think it helps give the notion that a company stands behind its product, and potentially has a low enough warranty rate that they have no qualms about extending it beyond the original owner. This would help convince me to buy a product new.

@Skooks, in addition to was Andrew M said, this video from Steve at Vorsprung makes a good case against trunnion: https://youtu.be/I9Lpxj9zVis

What makes you think there’s any incentive for bike brands not to stick with the garbage chainline of 55 mm/Boost 148? I mean, trunnion shock mounts are everywhere, which really only make life easier for the bike designer. They’ll switch to 157 axle only if they think it will sell more bikes. Consumer demand has to be there.

The Godfather supports Mathew Bond. What more convincing do you need?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CjuL_6fOwYs/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I’ve found the fit on the NF DP3 a bit tricky. I usually wear a medium, but the medium was quite tight. I ended up sizing up to a large and the legs are a bit baggier than I’d like. The quality is unbeatable, though, and they’re made locally and only marginally more expensive than other options made overseas.

I also have some iXS Trigger pants and the fit is better for me. I’m in the (North American) medium and they fit my bum and thighs with more fitted legs. They’re lighter-weight than the NFs and have held up well so far.

I wouldn’t hesitate to get the 2022 Lyrik, or even a 150 Pike. They are great forks.

Some people are just a-holes, and some of them happen to mountain bike.

Bar roll is the big one for me. If that's off, particularly if the bars are rolled too forward, the bike feels weird.

Weight on your hands potentially suggests a saddle tilt issue. Try tilting it back a bit more to move yourself into a more neutral position.

Posted by: syncro

Is this the DNV simply being asshole or are they reacting to the proliferation of rogue building that is happening everywhere and this is their solution for dealing with it. My guess would be the latter, not the former, so as usual we are our own worst enemy. It's amazing that after all this time the mtb "community" can't seem to get it's shit together and recognize that we need to work with the land managers instead of giving them the finger and acting like this is a free for all. MTB'ing has reached a critical mass where indiscretions can't continue to be ignored.

Fair point, but I think a lot of the unsanctioned building is happening because the sanctioned network isn’t meeting the needs of the ridership. Putting up more hurdles for sanctioned building is only going to result in more rogue trails, or at minimum does little to resolve the issue.

According to their website, Dunbar Cycles is renting bikes.

Posted by: Ddean

Here is the overlaw between TF and the DWV/BPP proposal. Its sloppy but you can see where I have circled the areas in red where the new multiuse path will conflict with existing trails. Ive had multiple conversations with planning; they are being great, listening and considering all feedback but at the end of the day their goal is to have more people able to venture up from the village at the 1st up to the great trail at the top, and they have concerns that the existing path up BLT or using the upper mountain path to Fern to BLT is not usable for many. I have been unable to change that perception. The proposed route up the mountain takes advantage of shallower terrain, which, not surprisingly, overlaps with various segments of existing bike trails.

My goto favorite, the middle of the old Sex Girl line between where its closest to BLT and above Fern looks like itll be done.

SOB is probably done

The top of Lower Tall cans is going to be a mess.

The new path is going to interfere with Pull Tab in a few places and take out some other stuff in that area

I have been grinning and baring the concept of losing everything around the 1st under the belief that trails above 1200ft, which is the line above which no development can happen, would be protected. Seems that this is going to be death by 1000 cuts.

Thanks for the update, and thanks for the efforts to advocate with DWV. That’s a shame that some trails above 1200 ft will be lost. Please let us know what we as a community can do to support.

I ordered a tire from CRC, which came to about $50, and chose the cheap shipping (order value too low for free shipping). My order shipped with Skynet, and I ended up owing $15.55, $12.43 of which was brokerage fee.

I received an email with a lump sum amount owed and payment instructions. I had to send a follow-up email to get a breakdown of customs costs; there was no way to find this information otherwise.

The amount I owed was fairly low, and not enough for me to kick up much of a fuss. But I didn't think it was okay for them to ask for payment without providing details, so I figured it was worth putting Skynet through the trouble of sending that info to me.

I realize my opinion of CRC is probably soured by my last purchase experience, where they sent me the wrong item and resolving it was a huge hassle. I am probably looking for fault. But the tire was too good a deal.