Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 231
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,881
    https://nsmb.com/articles/how-buy-mo...WiXSgeguFLv--0

    hey yer in luck a timely artical ^^ on how to buy a mountain bike
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    725
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    Regarding v1 vs. v3, here are the actual numbers. So if that 9mm difference in chainstay length (or the 1mm lower bottom bracket) is a game changer for you, it's probably just in your head. Personally, the only thing that was a noticeable difference for me was the reach (granted, my v1 head angle is 66 degrees).

    Attachment 251088

    Nearly 48" wheelbase??? Unrideable!!!

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    ^ Instant Classic! Great video.


    TahoeJ, I haven't ridden a v3 ... but here's what I did when the v2 came out:
    I went to a shop that had both v1 and v2, found some outdoor concrete stairs (like the kind when you have a 5-6' elevation change of a parking lot), rode v1 up and down then made it harder by trying to do a 90 degree turn at the top and bottom of the stairs, then did the exact same moves on a v2 that had similar/same fork/shock and air pressures. That plus some other urban jibbing around the shop (thankfully the town I was in wasn't flat and the local neighborhood had some elevation grades to use) gave me a decent sense of the geo and linkage differences ... It wasn't a "perfect test" but it was better than getting 100 conflicting e-opinions. The differences stuck with me as v2 being way better, but not "way better enough" to pay $2000 more for a v2 with same kit as clearance sale v1.

    You can do the same thing with your v1 and a shop demo v3, do you think the differences of such a simple test would be subtle or drastic? Only you can say whether they are subtle or drastic to you, or worth the money! And for the record v2 had a lower BB height (341 mm) but they pulled it back up in the v3, probably for better clearance. I can't say that the BB height itself was noticeable compared to the mid-stroke support and anti-sag properties climbing over chunder of the v2 linkage ... the chain stay difference is noticeable for me getting the bike on the rear wheel.
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,115
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    ^ Instant Classic! Great video.


    TahoeJ, I haven't ridden a v3 ... but here's what I did when the v2 came out:
    I went to a shop that had both v1 and v2, found some outdoor concrete stairs (like the kind when you have a 5-6' elevation change of a parking lot), rode v1 up and down then made it harder by trying to do a 90 degree turn at the top and bottom of the stairs, then did the exact same moves on a v2 that had similar/same fork/shock and air pressures. That plus some other urban jibbing around the shop (thankfully the town I was in wasn't flat and the local neighborhood had some elevation grades to use) gave me a decent sense of the geo and linkage differences ... It wasn't a "perfect test" but it was better than getting 100 conflicting e-opinions. The differences stuck with me as v2 being way better, but not "way better enough" to pay $2000 more for a v2 with same kit as clearance sale v1.

    You can do the same thing with your v1 and a shop demo v3, do you think the differences of such a simple test would be subtle or drastic? Only you can say whether they are subtle or drastic to you, or worth the money! And for the record v2 had a lower BB height (341 mm) but they pulled it back up in the v3, probably for better clearance. I can't say that the BB height itself was noticeable compared to the mid-stroke support and anti-sag properties climbing over chunder of the v2 linkage ... the chain stay difference is noticeable for me getting the bike on the rear wheel.
    Thanks will do. Went to shop and rode a Pivot Switchblade 29er, but my bike was not ready yet so had nothing to compare it to.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,621
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    ^ Instant Classic! Great video.


    TahoeJ, I haven't ridden a v3 ... but here's what I did when the v2 came out:
    I went to a shop that had both v1 and v2, found some outdoor concrete stairs (like the kind when you have a 5-6' elevation change of a parking lot), rode v1 up and down then made it harder by trying to do a 90 degree turn at the top and bottom of the stairs, then did the exact same moves on a v2 that had similar/same fork/shock and air pressures. That plus some other urban jibbing around the shop (thankfully the town I was in wasn't flat and the local neighborhood had some elevation grades to use) gave me a decent sense of the geo and linkage differences ... It wasn't a "perfect test" but it was better than getting 100 conflicting e-opinions. The differences stuck with me as v2 being way better, but not "way better enough" to pay $2000 more for a v2 with same kit as clearance sale v1.

    You can do the same thing with your v1 and a shop demo v3, do you think the differences of such a simple test would be subtle or drastic? Only you can say whether they are subtle or drastic to you, or worth the money! And for the record v2 had a lower BB height (341 mm) but they pulled it back up in the v3, probably for better clearance. I can't say that the BB height itself was noticeable compared to the mid-stroke support and anti-sag properties climbing over chunder of the v2 linkage ... the chain stay difference is noticeable for me getting the bike on the rear wheel.
    Yeah, again, I rode the v3 on some trails. It's a very nice bike - a little different - but not OMG IT'S SO REVOLUTIONARY!!!!! People are talking like one is a fucking space rocket and the other is a hatchback Toyota Tercel. I call bullshit. Riding more often and getting in better shape will do way, way, way more for your riding than the slight geometry tweaks between versions.

    That video was great.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    5,911
    ^^ I've got a v2 and was pretty happy when the v3 came out. Happy because I looked it over and felt zero need to upgrade from a bike I really like and fits me well.

    So I bought a new wheelset...

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    https://nsmb.com/articles/how-buy-mo...WiXSgeguFLv--0

    hey yer in luck a timely artical ^^ on how to buy a mountain bike
    First comment is good . Don’t you just ask your boy what to buy?

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Eugenio Oregón
    Posts
    8,382
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    People are talking like one is a fucking space rocket and the other is a hatchback Toyota Tercel. I call bullshit.
    There are 3 posters in here who suggested that updated geometry or another suspension platform might be more enjoyable for the OP than his current ride, and everyone else who wants him to get his dang suspension properly tuned before he gives up on the frame. You're like Dominican Lou with this "people talking about it all the time" and Toyota Tercel business.


    The OP is just overwhelmed and isn't "in the know" of translating bike jargon to skiing. I'll break it down for him.
    Probably not a perfect analogy but it's maybe directionally correct and a good place to start for ski experts who don't know shit about bikes, like I didn't 10 years ago!

    * Wheel Size: 29" = all metal ski (damp and keeps on trucking), 26" = all carbon ski (lively but you better not make mistakes), 27.5" = hybrid construction (so called sweet spot)
    * Travel: fully rigid = tele skiing (work so hard just to suck, but you have so much more soul than your counterparts, and it's damn awesome once you're dialed), hardtail = resort skiing on Dynafit bindings (totally fun in the right conditions but you'll get your ass kicked in the wrong ones), 100mm = 78-84 waisted groomer zoomer and crud buster, 130mm = 94-100 waisted "all mountain" do anything, 150mm = 116 waisted "go fast and jump off everything in any conditions" ski, 170mm = Praxis Protest, 200mm = Praxis Powder
    * Head angle: 70 degree = heavy sidecut all the way to the tip, 64 degree = reverse sidecut tapered tip with not a lot of sidecut
    * Seat tube angle: 75 degree = stiff tail, 70 degree seat tube angle = soft tail
    * BB height: 320mm = heavy camber, 355mm = big early rise and no camber underfoot, 340mm = hybrid early rise with a touch of camber
    * Reach: 400mm with 100mm long stem = boot mount -12cm from true center, 480+ mm with 0-stem = mounted on true center
    * Chainstay: 480mm = flat squaretail, 420mm chainstay = big early rise tail
    * Wheelbase: 1100mm = 170mm carvers and "trick ditch" planks, 1250mm = 210cm longboards

    Who can fix this analogy? Also, what does that make a 2015 Bronson is the equivalent of what, a Gen1 186 Lhasa Pow without carbon topsheet?
    _______________________________________________
    "Strapping myself to a sitski built with 30lb of metal and fibreglass then trying to water ski in it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

    I'll be there."
    ... Andy Campbell

  9. #134
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,621
    I think you may be overthinking this...

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,881
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    First comment is good . Don’t you just ask your boy what to buy?
    I borrowed his bike for an extended ride and bought one so it worked last time
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691
    That’s pretty good. All of it except for maybe the seat angle. 75+ is great for pedalling efficiency and it also really helps stay on top of the slack head angle when you’re climbing , especially around tech switchbacks

    To beat a dead horse a lil more. The difference in those Bronson versions in reach equates to more than one full size difference in any brand. 1.5 degree slacker head angle diff is more than the difference between any companies 140 and 160 bike. You can probably get another degree steeper on your seat angle by sliding the seat forward(makes it easier if you’re toptube is long enough not to get cramped).
    I think we’ve reached the max for ground breaking adjustments. There’s enough options on either side of the happy medium now to fit most body types and preferences. Some have gone a little overboard on reach and chainstays lengths but really that’s just going to limit their sales with limited number of possible consumers fitting those bikes
    Companies have been adapting little bits at a time. You can’t make drastic changes or consumers think you’ve gone off the deep end. Have to feed them by piece meal. They’ll buy any fancy acronym but make a drastic ha change(until the last couple yrs) and you’re just too way out there. They’re there now, only way to go is “way out there”

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,947
    I came here to post the same link to that video, but guess that's covered.

    To the ski comparison, I'd add that steep head angle feels something like being mounted too far forward, or skis about 20cm shorter than you should be riding. It's doable, but once you get going fast through rough stuff, it's really hard to keep from getting pitched forward.

    I honestly think STA is really undervalued in most newer bike designs. I've ridden a couple with 76+ (Capra, GG Trail Pistol), and am certain I will not buy anything with less than that on my next bike. Once I tasted it, I made the connection between why I felt like my Nomad 3 (74 STA) felt more comfortable pedaling up steep hills than my SC Chameleon HT (73 STA). So now when I'm looking at geometry, I basically ignore reach (even though it's so trendy right now) and focus on getting a good HTA (65), a good STA (76+), and an ETT that's appropriate for my height.

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    That's a good point. Steep STA feels easy to pedal and fast, and with the rest of the bike setup to keep your weight right 76 or 77 rides pretty well in a lot of situations--it just requires a more active left thumb.

    On my seldom-ridden road bike I'm between about 79 and 80. Some revolutions are more revolutionary than others.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,299
    I couldn't give a shit about how "fast" I can pedal, but steep STA keeps my weight over the front of the bike while climbing much better without forcing me to uncomfortably crunch forward at the waist. It keeps the front end planted and tracking better, especially on steep and technical climbs. It also allows you to pedal a slacker HTA bike to improve descents without compromising front end control on the climbs.

    If you take a bike and keep the ETT constant, and steepen the STA, you'll end up with a longer reach.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,844
    ....

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    15,691

    Buying a new bike, bike industry has lost me

    Wonder what Steve rides now. He does have a lot of yellow. Kooky canucks

    Well played though

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,779
    Recumbant hybrid.

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier View Post
    Recumbant hybrid.
    eCumbent.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Magically whisked away to...Delaware
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio View Post
    * Travel: fully rigid, single speed = tele skiing (work so hard just to suck, but you have so much more soul than your counterparts, and you'll claim it's damn awesome once you're dialed...but it's hard and it still sucks)
    FIFY.
    It makes perfect sense...until you think about it.

    I suspect there's logic behind the madness, but I'm too dumb to see it.

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    725
    This vertical seatpost hype is just hype. You can only stretch a wheelbase, top tube, and slacken the head angle so far without having to also adjust the seat position.

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    FIFY.
    You forgot, "and nobody cares"...

  22. #147
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Snow View Post
    This vertical seatpost hype is just hype. You can only stretch a wheelbase, top tube, and slacken the head angle so far without having to also adjust the seat position.
    Yep. Or put another way, the seatpost angle change is necessary to offset the longer reach, which naturally pulls more of your weight away from the front wheel when climbing.

    The idea that these bikes that are getting slacker and slacker and somehow also climb better is... interesting.

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,421
    ^^^
    So with "modern" bike geometry does pedaling position i.e. knee in relation to bottom bracket, no longer have much relevance??

    Seems everyone basically prioritizes long reach and slack head tube angle for descending prowess. That then forces a steep seat tube angle to keep weight forward when climbing. In so doing traditional metrics about knee in relation to bottom bracket are completely tossed out the window. Or is that just a roadie concept with little relevance to mtb??

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    10,248
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    not to mention a bunch of less obvious changes in the suspension that will also make a noticeable difference.
    This. I haven't seen the graphs for the new 5010/Bronson, but if the LR is anything like the new Nomad, it's a significant change, and potentially puts those bikes back on my interest list.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    13,844
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley View Post
    This. I haven't seen the graphs for the new 5010/Bronson, but if the LR is anything like the new Nomad, it's a significant change, and potentially puts those bikes back on my interest list.
    Yup, for sure. They've basically done away with the "pedaling platform" idea.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •