andy-eunson profile

A word of caution to those using non anodized rims. Sealant that contains ammonia will corrode non anodized aluminum such as Dura Ace tubeless road rims. I know from experience. It would seem to be that this Mucoff would be a good sealant for such rims.

Does the protection extend above the knee? I’m running some IXS Carve and they have a gap right at the knee cap and a thin strip above the knee. And yes I did smote my knee there last year.

I worked in a few shops when I was a young underemployed geologist. The pay was low but the shop discount was high and I had more fun doing that job and playing after work with those same people. Most fun I ever had. Partly because I was young and the job had low stress. I retired nearly three years ago now. I’ve never been a person that needed to be busy. I have dogs to walk and ride with. I have skis that need to be skied on and waxed. I do a fair bit of freelance trail maintenance where I walk the dogs and remove small blowdown and the like. I think about looking for work in a shop just for the human contact and to keep up with the new trinkets. I would consider a part time shop job for the fun but I wouldn’t do it for something to do with my time.

So glad I’m only 143 pounds and get away with EXO and 15 psi or so no problem. I could have used a Huck Norris strip on my shin yesterday though. Do they work as body armour?

My personal experience with Zipp road wheels was less than stellar. The first set had an uneven brake track that pulsed under braking. Then the spokes on the rear wheel all became loose. No thread lock of any sort. Then the front hub was recalled. I agree with the above sentiment that the drawing of the rim twisting is hyperbole. Also with that much compliance, the spokes will be loaded and unloaded far more than a standard rim. I think that will end up breaking spokes more rapidly. I read that a special spoke washer will be used to allow for some movement at the nipple rim connection.

It can be but think of all those fishing rods made from carbon.

13 gears doesn’t bother me considering my first mountain bike had 15 gears. But you raise a good point about range. What a rider needs is useable range. Around Whistler I want a pretty low low gear but a high gear isn’t very useful. I find a 32 by Eagle is close enough for my needs. Others would want something different than me that conforms to their own strength and local terrain needs. Road riders can get all sorts of cassette ratios. Why is off road a sort of one size fits all?

That looks a lot like a carbon rim some one else was making a few years ago. It’s interesting how compliance has suddenly become a new buzzword.

The entire point of ebikes is to get uphill faster so you can ride downhill more. Any other reasons to their existence although valid (such as for physically challenged individuals) is a side point.

Having read a report that ticks are out and a fellow found one on his nutsack, I want tight stuff down there.

Posted by: PaulB

Posted by: trumpstinyhands

Can we all agree to stop using the term acoustic/analog bikes. There are bikes, and e-bikes.

Hear hear. I despise that “acoustic” nick name. It’s infantile.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: craw

Ask me again in a few years when the battery life and weight are improved. I think they'll become ubiquitous. People who like to suffer will just suffer further and faster.

Nope. Some people just want to do it on their own steam. It’s a sense of accomplishment you can never get with an ebike.

Exactly. Although it could be argued that modern suspension allows me to clean certain descents or go a bit faster, climbing is different. I know that when I am too old and decrepit to climb well I’ll also be too old and decrepit to do those sketchy downhills.

If you just want a top guide, Shimano has a really nice one. Oneup are out of stock currently for the low direct mount that I wanted so the LBS suggested the Shimano unit which they had for me in two days. One bolt for up down and a dial, yes a dial to (hoho) dial in to chain line and lock down with that single bolt. They offer a ISCG, high direct and low direct options. My hardtail has no ISCG tabs so options are more limited. My bash guard is a bb mount Black Spire.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: earleb

Was it a competition for the worlds most boring looking cranks? Clear winner.

high quality + great performance + high durability + decent price = who fucking cares about looks

Exactly. We do not want a return to Kooka crap.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options. There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.

I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.

Ah the old "I'm close to average so everything that works for me works for everyone" fallacy.

I'm 6'6". At proper extension 74-75' leaves me so so far off the back as to be laughable especially when you factor in our current fascination with really short rear ends. This only gets worse if the actual seat tube angle is much slacker. And that's with the seat all the way forward. Now I'm on 77' with long chainstays and still have the seat all the way forward; the bike fits really well but I could comfortably use another degree steeper. Slacker STA and shorter CS in the smaller sizes, the opposite on the bigger sizes.

I think we are at the opposite sides of the norm. I think you’re right that rear centres should grow with frame size. A rider’s center of mass needs to be seated ahead of the rear axle.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb. 

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options.  There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.

I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.

More compliant parts. Oneup has just released a new 35 mm clamp bar with oval sections for compliance in one direction and stiffness for steering precision. Plus a stem and grips to suit.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb. 

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

I’m very good at recharging phones and Garmins. Pretty rare that I run out of power unless the battery is old and lacks capacity. The big big advantage of electric shifting is that it eliminates cable routing friction. Many bikes have very poor cable routing which results in poor shifting performance. All those curves and bends in standard mechanical shift set ups equal friction and potential issues. I’ve often had the same drivetrain on a hardtail and full suspension rig and the hardtail with fewer bends shifts better.

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.