earleb profile

I guess they don't need tire clearance in Colorado.

I only collect the ones I break. :)

Re what? Never heard of it.

A chunk of steel, a vise, a file, and ten minutes is all you need to MacGyver what you need to get the lock ring off and on to remove the chainring.

Frame should be steel. It could be repaired by a blacksmith in the third world if needed. 

Microshift makes an 11spd thumbshifter that works with Shimano stuff. 

Dropper post maybe something without oil in it like the Ritchey Kite. Mechanical lock into position with the collet system.

Do you have a shot of this lever against the original MT5 lever? I am okay with the original lever on my MT5's but would love something with a touch more "hook" and width at the tip of the lever.

I was mistakenly looking at a Canfield Balance 27.5 and comparing it to my 29'er model...axle path isn't actually any more reward than can be achieved with a single pivot. 

I played around with a single pivot and the Balance model more after my last post. One can match the AS, axle path, kickback, and cc with a single pivot to the Balance. The only difference is AR, the single pivot will have some brake squat while the Balance can be neutral or below 100%.

Pete it's not specific to your article. It's everything that's ever been published on the CBF suspension since back in 2016. They've gone and patented what a single pivot does...but with extra pivots. 

As Coop points out the Canfield brand has always had rearward axle path bikes, the CBF is no different, it's just odd that they don't really talk about it and they didn't promote it with their CBF patent and neither is Revel.

The center of curvature is known as anti-squat instant center when designing a frame. The AS-IS of a Canfield can be replicated  exactly with a single pivot, you end up with the same shape AS and AR curves. 

I am surprised there is no mention of the ONLY thing that differentiates this multi-link suspension from a single pivot. The rearward axle path that can be achieved.

Not soon enough. Most of the front end tubes are mitered, some of the rear end stuff is under way. Damn cold weather needs to take off back to the north so it's a bit more productive in the unheated shop.

ha I didn't know Red was running for the tourists and bikes, so it's already happening (slowly I guess). 

Get it running full speed, then bring on the Harmony zone expansion.

With the work that's gone in above the top out of Creekside Gondola you start to wonder if there is a long long term plan for Red chair get's bike chairs on it. 

When the glaciers have all melted out and the ski season is only a few weeks long, a 10 month a year bike park sounds like smart planning.

Anyone have a video link of updated Rutabaga? Trying to wrap my head around what's new and old and how the two lines run now.

Posted by: Ddean

Im not sure I believe that unless its dramatically different between DNV and DWV.

It's different. DWV is not on the game yet like the other land managers. Give it time and they'll catch up. With Strava heatmaps their job is easier than it ever was.

There isn't a rogue trail on the Shore that Parks, DNV, and Metro doesn't know about. Well unless it's only a couple hours old...but if it's been out there for 3-4 months...they know.

Posted by: swinefeaster

anyone out there still freeride? looking to hook up a shuttle this Sunday for cyp/Seymour/etc. can take 4 bikes...

888's suck for freeriding.

Fromme sucks, stick to Seymour. Seriously people, it's crap.

2.6 XR5 in the front and 2.6 SE2 in the rear. 

Party traction in the front and party drifting in the rear. 

Climbing Nimby there were lots of people spinning on the wet roots and I felt like i had traction for days. I am a convert to the 29 x 2.6 for hardtailing, I can't see ever going back to anything smaller.

You had to wonder how long they could have kept the floodgates open once SRAM cracked down.

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Posted by: norona

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

Not entirely correct. Class 1 e-mtb are classified as Class 1 e-mtb, and are thus prohibited from a limited set of riding areas such as Lord of the Squirrels, and certain private land trails managed by the Kootenay Columbia Trail Society/ KCTS (due to issues with insurance liabilities). There may be other areas added to this list as land-owners, insurance bodies, and wildlife managers take stock of emtbs and what they entail. Important to consider that it doesn't matter if these groups are correct in any assumptions they make regarding emtb, only that they have the power to influence restrictions. So I would think how you present yourself matters more than ever.

The recent decision on provincial recreation trails is a progression and really did help clarify some important issues, but there is still lots to figure out.....especially for clubs that have insurance and liability at stake. Of course, I would expect that people interested in promotion of emtbs would be very active in helping sort these things out.

As for riding UP tech trails, that sound great....assuming they are uphill tech trails. Of course, riding up downhill trails (designated as downhill primary on Section 56 permits) seems like a questionable idea, given the potential for conflict or collision with downhill riders. It is one thing for a downhill rider to see and avoid a hiker, but quite another to prepare for and avoid riders coming uphill toward them. Who gets the right of way?...the uphill emtb rider with his or her thumb on the boost button, or the downhill rider committed to their line? Surely ensuring safety and harmonious trail interactions takes precedence over espousing the virtues of a technology without consideration of the implications of its use. This (uphill downhill on the same trail) is an example. I have heard repeatedly that "emtbs are mtbs" yet at the same time they can be used in very different ways, have very different capabilities, and are assigned a distinct classification by the province that "acoustic" mtbs do not share. There is an established flow of traffic that has thus far served our trails and users well, and if that is to be upended by introduction of a new classification of vehicle, it should be discussed.

I will note that neither of the mentioned points aim to belittle emtbs or those that ride them, and are not calling for restrictions. Instead, they are simply what myself, and apparently some others see as legitimate concerns that should be addressed in order to maintain harmonious trails and access. I am really interested in hearing some good ideas and input on these, and less interested in more marketing of all that is great and rad.

I would think that the most vocal of the emtb promoters would have some thoughtful ideas for these matters, and would want to avoid stooping to engage others in name-calling. I mean, it is only going to be harder to win over either customers or allies by dismissing concerns as "the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable" while not contributing to a thoughtful conversation about legitimate concerns. So I pose it to you Norona, three questions:

1) How do you think we should we manage the intersection of uphill emtb traffic and downhill (emtb and mtb) traffic on downhill primary trails. By this, I mean trails that ordinarily, the vast majority of people would not ride up, but which become suddenly climbable with the addition of a battery and motor?

2) Are you, or any sellers or makers of emtbs making progress with or contributing to the discussions with the insurance companies and private landowners who have concerns about emtbs? Clearly we don't want such liabilities hanging over the heads of our clubs or the security of our trail access, and clarification would likely lead to more successful integration and ensured access. For example, KCTS is in a real pickle with the recent provincial decision, and want to take steps to integrate ebikes for all their positives, but remain hamstrung by insurance and liability impasses. Do you have thoughts on this?

3) What is your analysis of the recent provincial decision on recreation trails? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on challenges associated with enforcement of appropriate types of equipment and trail access (pg 10 on the policy)... What do you think needs to happen (and what needs to be avoided) during the stated "test period" of 2018 to 2021 (pg 11) for this policy to roll into an enduring state of trail access that works for everyone?

Personally, I like the policy, but I note it remains wide open for significant policy adjustment depending on how things roll for the next few years. I also think it misses a few things (such as point #1).

Just going to quote this again so it isn't buried. Let's hear some response from those promoting emtb's.