mammal profile

I agree, except part of me is extremely selfish and realizes that he won't be able to even come close to presenting as much up-to-date race analysis as he did last season. That part of me is sad.

7th definitely not the same trail as it was, but it's great fun on my hard tail! The dually FS trail bike always feels like it wants to flow faster than the trail allows, but the HT is prefect.

Such a great fork! I had one on a Santa Cruz Heckler.

Same reason my household is on that combo (but with 10spd deraileurs). Already had 10spd. But with regards to "upgrading", we certainly can't be arsed to drop $250 or more on a replacement cassette and chain, when a desirable spread exists for around half that. That money goes toward other fun stuff.

Cool. The RDMS10 looks like a budget version, and can still reach 11-46. Maybe there's hope for me and my stubborn cheapness...

Not a tonne of shifting, but I guess relatively often for that kind of terrain. It's usually only between 34-40, with a few between 40-46. If I only had 5 gears, I probably wouldn't shift.

Interesting overview of the madness. Because we're both coming from builds that involved 10spd SLX derailleurs, my GF and I both run the 10spd shifter/derailleur with the WT GoatLink and the SunRace 11-46 10spd cassette on our suspension trail bikes. You gotta hand it to SunRace for absolutely nailing the ratios on that cassette. 

I can't compare these setups to 12spd, because I don't own anything current enough, but I did build up my latest hard tail last fall with an 11spd SLX groupo (Swapped the cassette for SR 11-46 11spd). Performance is a mostly a wash for me, making me wish the 10spd stuff was continually available. I'm not sure about the 5spd business though, as those would be some tough ratios to swap between when I'm dying on my way up No Quarter. Probably not an issue for a single speeder, but I love my smooth transitions in moments when I'm trying to suck air through my eye sockets.

Tangent, but I find it interesting that you find the DHF 2.5 less satisfactory than the 2.3, as I've had the opposite impression. Are you referring the 2.5 WT or the old school one (pre-wide rims)?  I'm fairly certain the size and spacing of the knobs were proportionally scaled up for the WT version.

I found that as rims got wider, the 2.3 Minion had way too square a profile (29-30mm internal rim). Once I moved to the 2.5 WT, that tire gave me better overall performance than I ever had with the 2.3's, regardless of rim width. Probably a lot of that is due to the increased volume, but front seemed to transition more evenly from middle to side knobs better than my previous experiences. Fantastic even knob wear throughout the tread pattern as well. And I've been running DHF for a decade an a half. Interesting...

I don't recall any trash talk, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I was in that state of absolute bliss-focus after such enchanted trial conditions we had this weekend, like my dog with squirrels.

Thanks for the words Andrew. Good summary of recent work, I'm looking forward to checking out all the new ceder on Boundary.  I love these pieces that tie the historic elements of the shore to current status. 

I passed your fine Fam on Dreamweaver, when you were on your way up to Boundary this weekend. Hope I didn't cook past too quickly, but all 3 of you were pretty tucked away inside the switch back quite efficiently. Cheers!

For the record, I'm not sure I've ever made 40 minutes, but sometimes I have days where I think it's appropriate to try. I think my record is probably 42-43, but I don't strava, so who the hell really knows. I certainly get accustomed  to not getting passed (ebikes aside), but every now and then I get smoked by somebody... There are some absolute beasts out there, both humbling and inspiring.

I also have a great appreciation for the climbing route, as it stands now. I respect the challenge that organizers and builders faced with piecing together a route that 1) allows a much different ride flow than was available before, and 2) allows as large a % of riders as possible to be able to use it. The landscape and existing trail network certainly limits the available routes to the top, and every one of the possiblilities would be a compromise.

I think that the recent efforts to fill in some of the tech sections were mainly intended to make the challenge more appropriate for a wider swath of Fromme riders. Even in this thread, we've got everyone from "It's not challenging enough" to "Man, I can't imagine wanting this more challenging". Yet, pretty much everyone here uses that route (and probably enjoys it, to some extent). This just speaks to how effective their route choice is. I can clean the trail, but if I'm knackered it pays to go a bit slower, and if I need a bigger challenge, I try to make it sub-40min. 

The one thing I would gripe about is the addition of soil in areas that are clearly heavy drainage areas. It was mentioned previously, but even in the summer there were soul-sucking mud pits that remained weeks after it rained. I don't think anyone has any fun with that, but even this type of complaint comes with a caveat that it's a learning process. Hopefully those areas can receive some alternate choices for drainage or a different choice for fill, in the future.

Is that sarcasm? Because the bits of tape could still lift when levering a tire, and you need to cut/apply 32 little pieces of tape?

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: BeesIntheTr

For sure ease of access makes a difference, but who knows how much more often it will happen? That's where I think culture plays a big part. 

I agree that LOTS will probably see more ebikes, especially with Norona telling everyone they can legally go up there.

It is my understanding that the Ministry of Forests Land And Natural Resources has said no ebikes there.

I know that, at the very least, WORCA has taken that stance with their latest program (despite opening up a lot of their system to ebikes). I'd be interested to know if that was based on fundamental agreements or guidance from the Ministry.

Even last year when WORCA released their survey to user groups, trying to get a stance on how people felt on the matter... Lots of people's reactions were way over the top. A whole lot of "I'll ride my ebike all over Sproatt, there's nothing you can do to stop me".  I've heard they're considering a maintenance hut of sorts up there. Perhaps they'll use it for some tip-of-the-iceberg enforcement purposes.

Posted by: Kieran

I won't be buying one for a very long time but...

What if I buy an ebike and commute to my riding destination and never use my truck again for travel or as a shuttle option?

Does that entitle me to shred where I want? Is this a possibility in the future for a big number of riders in the Van area? Fewer vehicles on the road would be a good thing, right?

Well it certainly wouldn't address maintenance, conflict or access/permission issues... So no entitlement from where I stand.

Posted by: FLATCH

By your own statement trail organizations don’t seem to have much say as most areas are crown land.

What they wish and what is reality are two different things. I don’t see any grey areas.

You misunderstood me then, and saying most areas are on crown land is just another broad statement that doesn't capture the scope of the issue. Allowing the Orgs to act in accordance to their organization's best interests, and in accordance to agreements with Land Owner/Managers is the basis of what's allowed the amazing trail centers we now have, to grow and flourish. To me these relationships have been absolutely key in allowing growth in areas where there riding zones are in private land or mixed (private and crown, like KCTS).

If you're ( the royal You're) keen on short-circiuting this relationship by pointing to a preliminary legislation (which will be adjusted after the trial period), then that's "your" prerogative. I think it's harmful to the sport to turn a blind eye to the details of current legislation or down-play the established system of advocacy and maintenance. Assuming that "since they've sold 1000's of the things, it's reality" doesn't do justice to the issue, or give proper respect to the the Orgs that are only trying to manage their resources and agreements.

Trail Orgs, who act on the basis of their agreements with the Land Owners/Manager, have made bans. The closest examples are KCTS and UROC. Sure, KCTS is a bit handcuffed by the government regs, as some of their routes are partially on gov land and partially on private land, so it's sticky but ebikes are still currently banned from their system. UROC is a part owner of their land, and co-manage with the forestry company, who agreed to non-motorized use. You could also throw in WORCA and the Sproatt area.

Again, if you're expecting Land Owners to ban ebikes, it's not going to come in that form. If they can't manage this issue through the acting trail orgs (with whom they already have non-motorized agreements), they'll just ban all forms of bike access.

Posted by: Ouch

My understanding is it's been monitored, so a bit premature to say they're here to stay. Certain trail system have banned them and other have the legal right to implement bans as well.

That is correct. And I'll add that the worst justification, from my perspective, is the "Too bad, deal with it" line. That's been the company line all the way from the manufacturers, down to the dealers/renters, and trickled right down to many of the riders.

Posted by: FLATCH

But they are not self propelled. No input no forward progress. But I guess we've been over that.

Whether a throttle triggers a motor or pedal input, they're motorized. I don't care to argue this point further if it's unclear to you, but motorized/non-motorized is a very important distinction and not really debatable. And yes, that's been covered.

Sure, valid points (other than range changes with how many batts you carry). Motorized transportation then. I prefer not to group them together with mountain bikes, as those are self-propelled in my mind.