metacomet profile

If he's been using TriFlow for that long and hasn't seen the light yet, he has long been a lost cause.  ;-) 

What went wrong with the WPL fork oil?  Think it was specific to a certain fork/damper design or viscosity?  My experience with it has been with DVO, so the 2.5wt in the damper and the 7wt in the lowers.

Boeshield T-9 for my chains and cables for the last many years with good success.  The chains just seem to stay clean longer with no gunk build up, and its simple to clean and apply.  Can't see how you can go too wrong with it no matter the season. It's one weakness is maybe longevity during the wettest and muckiest of conditions, but there's nothing I've seen or experienced that actually works better in those conditions anyway. 

For all my suspension stuff I have really loved using WPL oils and grease.  Its a pleasure to work with and isn't harmful to your skin or the environment, which means no harmful crap when cleaning and disposing of it.  The grease works awesome on suspension seals and the oils have been perfect for lowers and damper services.  The forkboost lube does exactly what it says, and is great on dropper post stanchions too, and mixes well with the grease.  I like to add a drop to the grease I'm putting on the suspension seals.  I also use the grease on threads and low rotation bearings like headsets with really good success.  That stuff stays put and gives really slick lubrication despite how thick it feels in hand.   

The Kluber Isoflex LDS 18 Special A grease that Onyx uses for their clutch assembly works awesome in bearings as well.  Really expensive to purchase, but a little goes a long ways and damn it seems to last forever and resists contamination very well.

In my opinion, both yes and no.  But I'd say that in that specific travel range the differences are considerable enough.  I know the % change is greater the lower the travel numbers are, but I'd argue that the suspension feel changes more and more as you move into the longer travel ranges.  I believe because the available dynamic sag/travel and the way you utilize that travel changes more dramatically as you move up through the range until you hit a point of diminishing returns, which I think would be the area near and greater than 200mm.   

80-100mm is a pretty tiny difference.  100-120 is a bit more.  120-140 is more yet, 140-160 more again, 160-180 is pretty substantial. 180-200 is big, but maybe less than the change from 160-180. 

I know this is all dependent on the spring curve/leverage rate, but the idea still applies. 

Sorry for the rant.   Its an interesting subject, and I think something we all struggle with when visualizing our individual "ideal" bike.

Andrew, the 9point8 Fall Line has a 25mm setback option. And that's a Great dropper post.

I have really been wondering the same, and it is probably the only thing that has stopped me from grabbing a druid frame so far.  I know this is a brilliant trail bike and then some... But it would be nearly impossible for me to ignore a 150ish 27.5 bike.  Either a dedicated 27.5 with 160-170 up front, or one that I could run as a mullet with a 150-160 29.    I like 29ers just fine, but for a more aggressive bike that I'm really going to want to live with every day on steeps and anything else I come across I just prefer a 27.5 out back.   The druid is pretty dead perfect as is for its intentions, but for me, for one bike that can punch hard above its weight, and punch fast below, I think that would seriously be it.

SRAM it and call it 34.99?  lol ;-)

Yes.   Please industry.   Make everything 34.9.   For the love of God make everything 34.9.  Our existing 30.9 and 31.6 posts will work with a shim for backwards compatibility until we inevitably replace them as things wear out and/or better options come to market.  This is a standard the people want.   This is a universal standard the people NEED.

I have BOA's on my winter Lake MXZ 303's, and my 5.10 kestrels and I feel like adjusting them on the fly is more of a byproduct of the wires creating such rigid lines across the top of your foot.  Adjusting tension more or less becomes necessary because the rigidity grows uncomfortable over the course of the the ride as your foot heats up and swells, etc.  Laces tend to just become invisible as long as they're tied well to begin with.  BOA's are very quick and convenient getting a shoe on and off and allow for good micro adjustments, and they also work awesome on helmets.  Love their application there.   But after ripping them clean off both of my winter boots and breaking one on the kestrels, it feels like a major fail for a pair of $300 winter boots to be taken out by grazing a rock or a log. Spent a winter with a velcro strap around the whole shoe to keep it closed, and it honestly worked better than the boa. Did the same thing with the second boot the next winter.  BOA was great at sending me parts to fix it, as it was the entire base that ripped clean off, not just the ratchet, but it is comical when you think about how simple, durable, and perfectly functional a humble shoelace is in comparison.

I dunno.   I quite disagree with this.  I live in the northeast and ride 12 months out of the year and greatly prefer laces in every season.  Boa dials and ratchets simply do not conform and bend with your feet as comfortably and can create weird flex points on the shoe. And they are much Much more susceptible to breaking, rendering the shoe useless mid ride until fixed.  I've seen about 10 broken Boa's between myself and my friends.  And they can be popped open multiple times mid ride just from bumping against little things along the trail or snagging a branch while hike-a-biking. I guess I'm just not a fan.   Laces tend not to spontaneously break during a ride.  They also have a greater range of useable adjustment across the whole length of the tongue, meaning socks of different weights can be worn depending on the season.   I have yet to see a really well designed lace cover be incorporated into a shoe, and I think something like that would go a long ways to even further improve the functionality of laces as well as better sealing the shoe and keeping them dry and secure.

Very cool concept with these rims.  I like the compliance theory, and I think it could have more and more benefit the more natural the terrain becomes.  But they are in a tough segment with these currently though, as the weight and premium cost is going to be a big sales hurdle if the benefits of the design are most in line with technical back country natural terrain type of rider.  Perhaps too compliant to be smashed into all the things things at bike park speeds, and loaded up into hard packed bike park berms and blown out trails.  A bit too heavy to appeal to a weight conscious trail rider.   That leaves a small market in the middle and a tough competition with perfectly capable and affordable alloy rims at an equal weight.  The extra compliance really has to pay dividends in the experience, and the wheel system better be bombproof in order to attract and keep customers in that space.