iceBike* 2015 Randoms

 @georgy291 wrong-o-tron... the point with a good U-lock procedure is to reduce the amount of excess space inside the lock to as small as possible, which makes it difficult to lock both the frame and wheel. You can do it with a great big U lock but that makes it easier to break. This idea is pretty interesting - admittedly going to be heavier but its solid thinking.

 Random bike shows are all the rage this year.

 That Double D lock is pointless. If you lock up your rear wheel within the rear triangle, you don't need a 2nd lock for the frame. The thief would have to either cut through your frame or your rim/tire to get either.

 Always check what type of key the d-lock uses, the round shaped ones are easy to open in seconds to a practiced thief, and worryingly there are youtube videos showing you how they do it!

 Only good bike lock has interlocking steel cups.

 Yup, 15-30 bucks here for all different kinds. I've had one pair for about 3 years now, that's 3x longer than any bike gloves I've purchased. I find the stitching is far better quality

 Yup, the Mechanix Wear Gloves work well, but I have SCREWED wrists (former tradesman)....so I pretty much need gel palms to be able to ride without a great amount of discomfort later.....Mechanix Wear has their M-pact glove, which has a padded palm, but for me, it was not enough, which is too bad, because they are well put together, and even have some protection on the back.
So, for now I'm using another brand of glove similar to MW, made by IRONCLAD, and they have a gel palm, so far so good ( got maybe 4-500 km of riding on them), but I expect they're going to work out alright

www.mechanix.com/m-pact-covert (covert = all black, less gaudy than some of the coloured ones

ironclad.com/products/gloves/wwi-vibration-impact (this is closest I could find to what I bought, I see they also have "Tactical" stuff, which is usually all black, like MW Covert

 Yes the mechanix work for those who dig to ride. Anything is better than fox gloves!

 I've been using the Ironclads some. Not bad. Yes, better than Fox (what isn't?) but also cheaper than Mechanix. I do feel the Mechanix are a bit nicer.

 @shoprat: I guess it all depends on weather you need the extra padding or not, which I personally do....otherwise I would still be using the MW M-Pact Coverts

Time will tell how the Ironclads hold up, last season's total was 1461km.... we'll see how they look next November!!

 Well, i don't use gloves when i'm at the workshop, but nitrile gloves for bleeding brakes with DOT fluids are mandatory... What Mechanix gloves you can recommend me?

 I have found the basic mechanix gloves as low as $12 shipped. They make tire mounting and all your suspension work great. Great to ride in too but I prefer a thinner glove on my bike. You won't be disappointed if you by the cheapest ones you can find even if you just use them to rake the yard.

 I sweat peeling bananas. I swear by the Mechanix Vent gloves. I'm always in search for a great, breathable glove to ride in. I've found nothing better. I literally cannot not wear them.

 I had a pair of their thin gloves. Blew through them in 2 weeks, thumb totally worn out. Got a pair of the ultra durable ones, dead in less than a month. Useless.

 You crazy people "everything is better than fox" come on, stop the hate.

 It might go faster, but it won't survive flat landings for sure.

 He didn't fare the best on all his landings either this year.

 What's confusing about Maxxis?

Specialized rubber is good. And their doing that 'tyre amnesty' thing again in March so chance to get em cheaper.

 Yep, 650B+ sounds a good compromise, not the drag of a 'Full Fat' and so prob more trail friendly, though not so good sand and snow but then how often do we cycle on this stuff over here??!! Cotic have a prototype as well as Genesis if you havent seen it, both look the mutts nuts!!

 Yep, love the look of the genesis, just my ticket!

I also agree with you re all these new hub standards, are they really needed?? OK, so a 'Fat Bike' hub standard is needed, but why develop new ones for these new 'Semi Fats' as its just making it more muddled, too many sizes, cant they use something already out there!!!??

 Everyone complains about compatibility- why complain about something that is well thought out and designed around compatibilty? 27.5+ is designed around the possibilty of fitting in 29er frame/forks. If only boost 148 and 115x10 exist in the future, there will be nothing to complain about.

 Ye, but the idea of 650b+ fitting a 29er is not going to work with my 29er if boost 148 and 115x15 is the only option hubs, and I think there is a lot of people out there who will be in the same boat! Though I spos if the hubs are just a matter of changing collets, it's not total doom, but that's not always the case!

 @ballardski While I agree that the new hub standards are a little unnecessary, 27.5+ was not the original intention of the hubs. They are going to be primarily used on mountain bikes.

Their only argument, is that they will make stiffer and stronger wheels, as the flanges are getting spaced out. Any other argument is total BS

 dontcoast - main benefits on this bike are that the wider boost chain line allows more drivetrain options without chain/tyre rub, and the forthcoming sups forks for this category will be 110x15.

 I am under a strong impression that this is actually incorrect, and I would call it a marketing sham if they were trying to market that way .
If this kind of thing really interests you, I would encourage you to read "The bicycle wheel" by jobst brands. He is a mechanical engineer from outside the bike industry who has worked with porsche and other high end stuff. In the book he says that a lower spoke tension does not soften the bumps in the road. Lower spoke tension just creates a wheel that has a smaller maximum load capacity, or simply a weaker wheel.
Your tire pressure will make a difference 100x more than spoke tension will for stiffness/suppleness.

 When I get to the top of a climb, I better loosen the tension on my spokes when I let my air out to get maximum grip on the way down.

 Hmmm. I think we're coming from two different understandings of how spoke tension is influencing wheel stiffness - and therefore grip. (And to be truthful, I hadn't considered your perspective... so bear with me). I'm proposing that by lowering spoke tension, the wheel will feel less stiff because the rider's inputs (especially steering and cornering) will be softened by wheel flex, increasing grip. In essence, when turning the handlebars to the left, there is resistance from the tyre's grip which is transferred through the tyre, into the components of the wheel, the fork, the stem, and the bars. (The same resistance that makes it difficult to turn the steering wheel of an old car without power steering). This is because you're basically forcing the tyre to break traction, and is most obvious at low speed, tight turns - when you're turning the bars very sharply. Note that the resistance is only present when you're actually moving the bars (just like the wheel in the old car). While cornering at high speeds, this resistance may seem to have disappeared, it is still present to an extent. (Still following?)

 A wheel with low spoke tension will be more flexy. So when turning left (as in the previous example), the resistance from the tyre's grip, against the initial turning of the handlebars, will be absorbed by the wheel, rather than forcing the tyre to break it's grip. Of course the tyre will eventually turn, but the initial turning motion brought on by turning the handle bars will be softened by the wheel flex. It was in this sense, that I meant a low spoke tension would promote grip.

Whereas you are talking about the probability of a low spoke tension enabling the wheel to absorb more bumps (presumably allowing the tyre to remain in contact with the ground more efficiently - acting like suspension). I feel inclined to agree with you, that this is unlikely to be the case to any great extent except at unusably low spoke tensions, since the spokes are load bearing under tension, not compression. Hope that makes sense - and I'll take a look into that book, cheers.

 @Alfaro @Xyphota Nicolas Vouilloz played a lot with the spoke tension in his DH years, I guess he continues to do it today as well, and there is reason to do so.

 @Alfaro A great article that claims spoke tension has no impact on wheel stiffness sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm . That was posted through a local forum and while i can't verify the legitimacy of the tester, it seems legit.

 the MET and BlueGrass helmets have the retention system. In METS they even integrated it with a red light for safety . This system is a really cool thing.

 Also the BBB bhe-52 Tabletop has a retention system.
bbbcycling.com/bike-wear/helmets/BHE-52

 I could be wrong but I think the + just means that it's got fat tires. . . .

 27.5+ wheels fit in regular 29" wheeled bikes. It allows for a wider rim / tire combo without needing a whole new bike.

 No mate different size rims too. They won't fit in a 27.5 frame but will in a 29er frame. New bikes are now being designed around the 27.5+ wheel size.

 Not sure you're correct Matt76.

27.5+ is more about the tire than the rim.

27.5+ exists to "fatten" your 29er by using a STANDARD diameter 27.5 rim coupled with a large volume casing 2.8" width wheel, thus ALMOST ending up with a 29er outside diameter wheel.

I'm pretty sure 27.5+ specific rims (like WTB's 45mm external width Scraper) will work with any 27.5 frame, it's the TIRES that won't fit a 27.5 frame.

Now that that's cleared up, what's the deal with those 27.5+ Maxxis tires? Are there no details that the author could have added? Specs? Names? Production plans?

 @MasterSlater - It's a combination of tire and rim that make 27.5+ an emerging trend. If you put a 2.8" wide tire on a skinny rim, sidewall support will suffer. Put it on a wide (30+mm) rim, and you've got a better setup. The reason you can fit a 2.8" wide tire mounted onto a 27.5" rim into many 29er frames is because the front of the tire ends up being a few millimeters back from where a traditional 29er tire would sit, which creates the extra clearance that's necessary.

 Trust me..bikes will be completely designed around the 27.5+ wheel and rim. Give it 12 months and it'll be all that people are banging on about. 26, 27.5 and 29 will become obsolete within a couple of years. Mark my words on that.

 So can I put 2.5" tires on 40mm wide 26" rims in a 27.5 frame, then? I'm half joking, but half really @#$%ing serious.

 I think I agree with Matt76, somehow i cant see these 650B+ wheel set up fitting my 29er, as the clearance between chain and seat stays on the back end of mine is pretty tight with standard 2.2 tyres!!

 It must be pronounced "Jayyyyg" as per Jeremy Clarkson.

 Ah this is true!

 lol very true!

 do you like luxury?

 I believe poc makes one with the retention device.

 That is correct. It's called Crane. This season it even has a version with MIPS system. It has a dual density Eps core and a thicker and tougher outershell than normal in-mold helmets.

pocsports.com/en/product/1991/crane-mips

 Same, Charge have been putting up pictures of a rad looking proto too...

 I understand the design (27.5" wide rim with phat tyres to fit a 29" frame) but I don't really understand the need or purpose for a 27.5+ bike, plese explain the reasioning behind it if you can

 Trek say it's for the 'ride quality and fun factor' but I guess It's like a middle ground between a fat bike and a normal bike, it won't perform as when in conditions like snow, compared to a fat bike, but will be alot more effective on average mtb trails

 Check out the Cotic

www.pinkbike.com/news/london-bike-show-randoms-2.html

 Same here...

 I'm at the show, the baron is new and is 650bx2.4 also comes in 29" apparently. They're in high demand so start making friends with a continental dealer now and you might have a chance at a pair.

 Yeah the new Baron has been at shows for well over 6 months, but not in shops!

 I've heard rumors of production delays with the Baron and Kaiser Projekts but they should be available in N America in late spring. CAN'T WAIT!

 I've got some 650 2.4 Barons on my Sanction (ex Atherton), they're well worth the wait!!

 What we need are single ply Der Kaisers for our trail bikes.

 Balls. "Late spring" probably means at least May

 agreed!

 Not tried any of there black chilli jobs yet, but im not a fan of the mountain king. Love the rubber queen/trail king, x king and race king though!!

 you don't think they built something around the car to give it the illusion it's cut in half?....

 i thought that, but then looked back at the overhead view of the floor, and the walls separating displays are thin with another company on the other side.

 It even looks like it could be juse a shell

 This. Exactly.

 Or maybe they bought one that was totalled in the front and cut the back off. That sounds a lot cheaper than buying a new one.

 indeed. just go 20mm in the front FFS. the weight difference is negligible. 15mm made sense as a replacement for QR, but should never have become the standard for every single crown fork with less than 160mm travel like it is now.

 Think of where the 20x110 axle standard would be if they spent all the R&D money there, instead of inventing a solution for a problem that didn't exist. The humble 20x110 would be just as light, if not lighter, and much stiffer than 15mm could ever hope to be, regardless of width...

 See, most of the time, I'm willing to give the bike industry a pass on stuff, because hindsight is 20/20, but this dichotomy irritates me: 35mm handlebars are lighter than 31.8 bars, because they can make the walls thinner, but 15mm axles are lighter than 20mm? really, now I just feel like I'm being sold a bridge in NY.