Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[MrMan]

I'd like to rant about people who don't understand that cutting inside lines on trails has nothing to do with strava, nothing to do with lacking skills, and has everything to do with poorly routed trails and maintaining momentum

Ha. Ha.

[grinch]

I think I'm supposed to demean your bike handling skills and go off on a phone app at this point.

Haaa, I know when I'm out of my league. I go slow thru those sneaky insiders......only to keep the tires on though

[Jonny Snow]

I'm super pissed that the bike makers seem to be backing away from the whole plus tire thing, I was thinking about buying a plus bike but now I'm worried they won't be supported in a couple years. Big fat tires are the coolest thing ever, 3.0" fo lyfe.

[gravitylover]

They're not really backing off but they do seem to think that people want 2.6 rather than 2.8<>3.0. The bikes will be able to run those tire sizes though and the tire companies are adding more models in those sizes so I wouldn't worry about availability going forward.

[HankScorpio]

I'm super pissed that the bike makers seem to be backing away from the whole plus tire thing, I was thinking about buying a plus bike but now I'm worried they won't be supported in a couple years. Big fat tires are the coolest thing ever, 3.0" fo lyfe.

The beauty of getting a frame that fits 27.5+ is it will still fit 29ers and regular 27.5 with just just minor changes in geo and BB height. Companies making frames that fit multiple wheel sizes is the future.

[gravitylover]

^ Yup 148 or 157 rear spacing with shortish chainstays make for good climbers and open the door for multiple wheel and tire size choices.

[Jonny Snow]

2.6" is just a normal fat tire. I want Plus. These bike makers can't decide what's good and offer it to the public. I bet by the end of 2018 they'll be trying to bring back 26" because they'll be claiming it's "more fun" to "handle" a bike than to ride a plus bike like a hack.

[toast2266]

The beauty of getting a frame that fits 27.5+ is it will still fit 29ers and regular 27.5 with just just minor changes in geo and BB height. Companies making frames that fit multiple wheel sizes is the future.

Multiple wheel sizes are the future in the same way that super-adjustable geometry and leverage ratios was the future back in 2002.

And then everyone realized that making a bike that had a bazillion different configurations just meant that the bike kinda sucked in all of them. So they went back to bikes with 1, or maybe 2 configuration options. I predict the same will happen with wheels. Bikes will be designed around a particular wheel size in mind. Sure, you'll still be able to fuck around with it and change things if you want, but the bike won't ride as well. The geometry will be fucked up, and the linkage kinematics will be off.

[Jonny Snow]

Multiple wheel sizes are the future in the same way that super-adjustable geometry and leverage ratios was the future back in 2002.

And then everyone realized that making a bike that had a bazillion different configurations just meant that the bike kinda sucked in all of them. So they went back to bikes with 1, or maybe 2 configuration options. I predict the same will happen with wheels. Bikes will be designed around a particular wheel size in mind. Sure, you'll still be able to fuck around with it and change things if you want, but the bike won't ride as well. The geometry will be fucked up, and the linkage kinematics will be off.

Only crazy people who live in their mom's basement and have never known the touch of a woman have multiple wheels for a bike.

[jackstraw]

Jong Snow - plus tires suck. Stop whining.

[Jonny Snow]

Jong Snow - plus tires suck. Stop whining.

No way man, they look awesome while being less slow than a fat bike. That's what they said in the shop anyway. 100% win in my book.

[rideit]

Multiple wheel sizes are the future in the same way that super-adjustable geometry and leverage ratios was the future back in 2002.

And then everyone realized that making a bike that had a bazillion different configurations just meant that the bike kinda sucked in all of them. So they went back to bikes with 1, or maybe 2 configuration options. I predict the same will happen with wheels. Bikes will be designed around a particular wheel size in mind. Sure, you'll still be able to fuck around with it and change things if you want, but the bike won't ride as well. The geometry will be fucked up, and the linkage kinematics will be off.

Except for Rocky Mountain, who have kinda nailed it.

[toast2266]

Except for Rocky Mountain, who have kinda nailed it.

True.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[gravitylover]

Jong Snow - plus tires suck. Stop whining.

No no no For all of the choices that I had this year the steel hardtail plus bike with the 3.0 rubber is the one that came out to play 95% of the time. Next year I hope to have a couple of choices of plus bikes to ride.

[kidwoo]

Multiple wheel sizes are the future in the same way that super-adjustable geometry and leverage ratios was the future back in 2002.

And then everyone realized that making a bike that had a bazillion different configurations just meant that the bike kinda sucked in all of them. So they went back to bikes with 1, or maybe 2 configuration options. I predict the same will happen with wheels. Bikes will be designed around a particular wheel size in mind. Sure, you'll still be able to fuck around with it and change things if you want, but the bike won't ride as well. The geometry will be fucked up, and the linkage kinematics will be off.

What are you thinking of exactly? When you talk about multiple leverage ratios I think specialized and intense (like 2001-2004ish?). Both of which did a pretty good job of messing with leverage and travel ratios that worked out pretty well. Then yeah now there's rocky mountain which looks legit and I can tell you from experience the guerilla gravity stuff works.

[jm2e]

Multi-Set-Up bikes are for people who see themselves as being ready for the cutting edge, but aren't brave enough to commit to just jumping in. The couch shredders theorize how often they'll fiddle with their geo settings and swap out wheels for the perfect ride on any given day. In reality, the shit gets fiddled with during the first week of riding then stays put until all the options are old and irrelevant.
In other words, Multi-Set-Up bikes are the future and they're here to stay. It's all marketing driven, and money makes industry.

[jm2e]

I'd like to rant about people who don't understand that cutting inside lines on trails has nothing to do with strava, nothing to do with lacking skills, and has everything to do with poorly routed trails and maintaining momentum

x1000

[MrMan]

x1000

#stayonthetrail #keepsingletracksingle #ifyoudidntbuilditdonotalterit

[JerseyDave]

Tourism as a major part of any economic plan.

[east or bust]

seems to work for a lot of places, including a few in VT. I heard hermit life is way more enjoyable in Maine anyways

[toast2266]

What are you thinking of exactly? When you talk about multiple leverage ratios I think specialized and intense (like 2001-2004ish?). Both of which did a pretty good job of messing with leverage and travel ratios that worked out pretty well. Then yeah now there's rocky mountain which looks legit and I can tell you from experience the guerilla gravity stuff works.

I was mostly thinking Intense. There's a Jeff Steber interview floating around somewhere that I can't be bothered to find that explained why they went away from offering bikes with shitloads of configuration options. And it was basically that, while there were some setup combinations that were great, there were lots of possible combinations that were terrible. And he was seeing way too many people set their bikes up in the terrible combinations.

I also think the newer iterations of this idea (Rocky and GG) are offering much more subtle changes, so it's harder to land on a terrible one. Some of the old intenses could make pretty significant changes in geometry, leverage ratio, and travel, and there were definitely configuration options where, if you were running it that way, it really just meant that you bought the wrong bike.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[kidwoo]

Some of the uzzi iterations for sure (38lb 5" travel bike? sweet). But the m1s I thought were pretty legit for making the thing more/less progressive. Shit, I wish my v10 had that option to be honest. Horses for courses kind of stuff.

Also, my average after work trail ride isn't exactly porc rim/downievile/monarch crest. So changing wheels and/or some travel/leverage is something I've often done when there's the option. Pedal and zoom setup vs. crush the earth setup.

But when you make a bike like the 951, you don't really have a leg to stand on, telling customers that THEY don't know what they're doing.

[bagtagley]

Multi-Set-Up bikes are for people who see themselves as being ready for the cutting edge, but aren't brave enough to commit to just jumping in. The couch shredders theorize how often they'll fiddle with their geo settings and swap out wheels for the perfect ride on any given day. In reality, the shit gets fiddled with during the first week of riding then stays put until all the options are old and irrelevant.
In other words, Multi-Set-Up bikes are the future and they're here to stay. It's all marketing driven, and money makes industry.

You gots the brokenrecorditis. I can't speak to the Rocky Mountain, but the "modes" on the Megatrail all ride well, and are useful, and are noticeably different. I changed it regularly, sometimes mid-ride. That's the closest to a one-bike-to-rule-them-all that I've ridden. You should ride one, it might change your mind.

[jackstraw]

No no no For all of the choices that I had this year the steel hardtail plus bike with the 3.0 rubber is the one that came out to play 95% of the time. Next year I hope to have a couple of choices of plus bikes to ride.

Ha! The 2.8 is just ok. I'll take a 2.3 any day over it unless it's wet or maybe a little snow.

#stayonthetrail #keepsingletracksingle #ifyoudidntbuilditdonotalterit

Yeah, and don't fucking dumb down a tech area or braid shit to go around a difficult line.

[toast2266]

Some of the uzzi iterations for sure (38lb 5" travel bike? sweet). But the m1s I thought were pretty legit for making the thing more/less progressive. Shit, I wish my v10 had that option to be honest. Horses for courses kind of stuff.

Also, my average after work trail ride isn't exactly porc rim/downievile/monarch crest. So changing wheels and/or some travel/leverage is something I've often done when there's the option. Pedal and zoom setup vs. crush the earth setup.

But when you make a bike like the 951, you don't really have a leg to stand on, telling customers that THEY don't know what their doing.

I'm more with jm2e. I fiddle a little bit when I get a bike, but then I pretty much leave it. I don't like making geometry changes, because then I have to get used to the bike in the new setting. And I don't really like travel adjustments because I don't see much use for them. And leverage ratio changes are ok in theory, but any significant change is going to screw up the shock tune. Or if I have a more adjustable shock, it means I'll have to fuss around with the settings. I think the main reason Rocky's system is good is because the changes are pretty subtle. But still, those are changes that I'll do once and then leave it. I'd be just as happy having a bike that had the right settings in the first place and not fucking around with it.

Never rode a 951 though. What's wrong with that thing? Other than it seems like they break a lot.