Page 274 of 313 FirstFirst ... 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 ... LastLast
Results 6,826 to 6,850 of 7816

Thread: Ask the experts

  1. #6826
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Van
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    To add to what climberevan said, every derailleur has a stated maximum tooth capacity. For an X01 11 speed long cage derailleur, that stated capacity is 42 teeth.

    I've found that you can almost always exceed that maximum capacity a little bit, but going up to a 46 tooth is pushing it a bit. So yeah, I'd say there's a 70% chance it'll more or less work and a 95% chance that shifting into that 46 tooth cog will not be particularly smooth. And since you'll likely have to run the b-screw quite a ways in to get it to work, shifting in the other gears will likely be a little worse too.
    Thatís helpful, thanks. Since the bigger cog is more in the nice-to-have category than the Iím-dying-on-climbs Iíll probably stick with the 42. I suppose if I was desperate for lower gearing the easier (cheaper) route is to play with chainring size rather than bigger cassettes.
    I'm taking myself to a dirty part of town, where all my troubles can't be found...

  2. #6827
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars
    Posts
    3,674
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover View Post
    I tried that on my 65mm fat rims, and it was...not good. Built up a 2nd wheelset with 35mm rims for 29x3 front and 27.5x2.8 rear and it works much, much better. The bike spends most of its time with the plus setup on anyhow, so it turned out to be a good thing. Then it's easy to throw the fatties on when we actually get enough snow/ice around me.

    YMMV.
    Not good in what way?

    Building up new wheels was my Plan A but I can't find hubs. 197x12mm & 150x15mm.
    Update, Ali express is full of hubs of every size, probably all top quality stuff too.
    Last edited by Beaver; 01-20-2022 at 02:48 PM.
    You are what you eat.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    There's no such thing as bad snow, just shitty skiers.

  3. #6828
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,206
    I've got a set of offset bushings on order, and trying to wrap my head around which way to orient them to slacken/steepen the angles. On their website FAQ, they show both bushings set so the eye to eye is reduced as being slacker/lower. https://www.offsetbushings.com/pages/how-they-work

    So if you orient both outwards, that should steepen things? And if you do just one bushing with the holes inward/outward, that should do half the change?

    When I try to visualize it, it seems to me that if you put the hole further away from the shock, it would make the front triangle sink closer to the rear end, getting slacker. And if you made the hole closer to the shock, it should push the front triangle away. Why is this incorrect?

  4. #6829
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
    I've got a set of offset bushings on order, and trying to wrap my head around which way to orient them to slacken/steepen the angles. On their website FAQ, they show both bushings set so the eye to eye is reduced as being slacker/lower. https://www.offsetbushings.com/pages/how-they-work

    So if you orient both outwards, that should steepen things? And if you do just one bushing with the holes inward/outward, that should do half the change?

    When I try to visualize it, it seems to me that if you put the hole further away from the shock, it would make the front triangle sink closer to the rear end, getting slacker. And if you made the hole closer to the shock, it should push the front triangle away. Why is this incorrect?
    Think about it in terms of the resulting distance between the shock mount bolts. The center of the bushing (as in center of the OD, ignoring the hole) doesn't move but if you orient the bushing such that the holes are closer together, you've made the topout position a smidge deeper into the travel. Hence lower/slacker.

    I've found that they'll eventually walk their way into a different orientation if you try to use them to make a bike taller/steeper. They work fine going the other way.

  5. #6830
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,206
    Do you have to change spring rate then? Is it like running a couple percent more sag?

  6. #6831
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cuntecticut
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaver View Post
    Not good in what way?

    Building up new wheels was my Plan A but I can't find hubs. 197x12mm & 150x15mm.
    Update, Ali express is full of hubs of every size, probably all top quality stuff too.
    Squared off the tires way too much for my tastes. Didn't care for the way that rode at all. That was just on 65mm rims.

    If you already have ther tires on hand, may as well try it and see how it feels for you.
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  7. #6832
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by BCtransplant View Post
    That’s helpful, thanks. Since the bigger cog is more in the nice-to-have category than the I’m-dying-on-climbs I’ll probably stick with the 42. I suppose if I was desperate for lower gearing the easier (cheaper) route is to play with chainring size rather than bigger cassettes.
    You'll be fine with the 46t. I'm running an 11-spd Garbaruk with 48t and GX with no trouble.

  8. #6833
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
    Do you have to change spring rate then? Is it like running a couple percent more sag?
    No. If anything it'll make the bike infinitesimally stiffer, because you're going to be starting very very slightly deeper in the travel (at a point where the leverage ratio is lower on a progressive bike) but the difference is so tiny you'll never notice.

  9. #6834
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    19,202
    Why do people wear goggles on trail rides? (uphill and downhill)

    Maybe this should be in the bitching about bike, stuff thread instead... but it doesn't annoy me, it's more amusing than anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  10. #6835
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,606
    Because they're enduro as fuck.

  11. #6836
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    tetons
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chupacabra View Post
    Why do people wear goggles on trail rides? (uphill and downhill)
    the downhill I can get, but the uphill baffles me too
    skid luxury

  12. #6837
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    26,584
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chupacabra View Post
    Why do people wear goggles on trail rides? (uphill and downhill)

    Maybe this should be in the bitching about bike, stuff thread instead... but it doesn't annoy me, it's more amusing than anything.
    i can't do it either on the single track or the skin track

    too hot I guess
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  13. #6838
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    19,202
    Just seems sweaty. I don't think I've ever ridden a bike fast enough to feel I needed goggles for wind protection, and that includes on a road bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  14. #6839
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    tetons
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chupacabra View Post
    Just seems sweaty. I don't think I've ever ridden a bike fast enough to feel I needed goggles for wind protection, and that includes on a road bike.
    at the bike park I like it for the dust
    but yeah- way too sweaty for anything else
    my husband will sometimes wear his goggles hiking and it almost makes me mad bc I'm back there sweating my @ss off and he's casually hiking along in goggles
    skid luxury

  15. #6840
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,535
    I'll occasionally wear goggles with a half shell for descents if it's really muddy and I'm trying to keep it out of my eyes, but that's it. And if it's that muddy goggles usually suck anyway because it's just too wet and humid and they fog up.

    I have no idea why or how anyone would wear them climbing.

  16. #6841
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,139
    Recommendation for a crankset to replace X01 dub boost?
    New bike is coming w/ 175 and I want to change to 170.
    Iím thinking thereís a better combo of light enough, strong enough, priced right to not automatically go with a shorter X01 but buggered if can keep up with all the options.
    And since this is a d2c bike Iím on my own (or rather reaching out to you all for help). Thanks

  17. #6842
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,206
    I wore goggles climbing for parts of my ride yesterday because it was windy AF, like gusting to 60mph. Kept the dust out. The wind was enough that I didn't get sweaty.

  18. #6843
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC to CO
    Posts
    4,040
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    Recommendation for a crankset to replace X01 dub boost?
    New bike is coming w/ 175 and I want to change to 170.
    I’m thinking there’s a better combo of light enough, strong enough, priced right to not automatically go with a shorter X01 but buggered if can keep up with all the options.
    And since this is a d2c bike I’m on my own (or rather reaching out to you all for help). Thanks
    XO1 SRAM Dub Boost with 32t chainring = 471g and a retail price of $350

    -XX1 SRAM Dub boost with 32T = 420g. Crank arms retail for $389. PROS- you keep your BB and chainring.
    -Race Face Next SL crank with 32T (arms, spindle, preload assembly, lockring, 32t chainring, boots) = 450g (428g arms only) $450 CONS you need new BB and Chainring.
    -Race Face Next R with 32T = 495g. $430 Same as above.
    -e*thirteen TRS Race Carbon Crankset - 170mm, 425g (arms only). $340, same as above, need bb and chainring.
    OR Baller status:
    -Cane Creek eeWings Mountain Titanium Crankset, 400g, $1100. Need a BB but can use your SRAM chainring.

  19. #6844
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,139
    ^^^ thank you [mention]Dee Hubbs[/mention]
    That excellent summary makes sticking w SRAM seem like the best option given BB and chainring compatibility.

  20. #6845
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,606
    ^^^ also, xtr cranks. A little heavier than the sram options, similar price. Cons: need bb and chainring. Pros: not carbon and thus won't have pedal / bb insert failure.

  21. #6846
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Basalt, CO
    Posts
    425
    I wore goggles up and down my second and third seasons riding bikes. The Smith Squad MTB is so ventilated that I never fogged up while climbing in dry ass CO. Only time they have fogged on me is while taking a break while riding DH with a full face.

    And the why? Goggles were cheaper than any bike specific glasses I could get. And as a contact wearer I needed the wind protection for descents. Confusing people on the trail was just one of the perks.
    "Just send it you pussy."

  22. #6847
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    BC to CO
    Posts
    4,040
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    ^^^ also, xtr cranks. A little heavier than the sram options, similar price. Cons: need bb and chainring. Pros: not carbon and thus won't have pedal / bb insert failure.
    What is this mythical unicorn you speak of?
    An August 2022 lead time (to even fulfill the backorders)

  23. #6848
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NorCal coast
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by dcpnz View Post
    ^^^ thank you [mention]Dee Hubbs[/mention]
    That excellent summary makes sticking w SRAM seem like the best option given BB and chainring compatibility.
    There's also SRAM Descendant carbon cranks, which are something like 100g heavier but are tougher and cheaper than the X01 and XX1 options. They're about the same weight as light alloy ones from what I remember. But if you're considering that, then take a look at RF Turbines.

  24. #6849
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    11,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee Hubbs View Post
    What is this mythical unicorn you speak of?
    An August 2022 lead time (to even fulfill the backorders)
    In stock on Amazon and a bunch of other places. Amazon has them in 170mm and without a chainring for $435 (narrow chainline version).

  25. #6850
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,467

    Ask the experts

    I was making fun of some Endur-bros on a backcountry group ride that brought their goggles.

    Then on a downhill I went through a soupy pile of cow shit that flung up into my eyes, even wearing large coverage glasses.

Posting Permissions

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