NoSkidMarks

;-)

No no no. Go slacker with more offset ;-) Steep forks are dangerous. We have shorter stays to help quicken up the steering.

Tracks will mainly dictate wheel size. If tracks were very tight and techo(narrow lines that needed to be linked etc), we'd see 26er having more of an advantage, But we won't and 27" will hold it's own against it anyway. 27" is the future I'm fairly certain. It's nimble enough, but has slightly better rolling ability, and slightly more traction cornering(not sure if this is at the expense of feel). This whole rake trail thing, for 27" is mainly marketing so we buy 27" specific forks. The benefits will be minimal, if even perceivable. 27" should make the good old ZERO travel hardtail with 4.5" forks gain some performance ground back, even against electronic blah blah.

They fall into holes easier, have trouble rolling over things as easy and have less traction. You asked what was wrong with them. Smaller wheels have many benefits too.

Specialized have a much much higher budget for sponsoring top riders. Zerode with a 23tooth rear sprocket has much lower gear than a demo, and probably less bob, and as good or better pedaling. Especially the newer G2. No need to have anything to do with opinions or arseholes, look at the leverage curves, anti squat, etc. And I think Zerodes statisticly are doing better at races than Demos. That might be my arse talking, but it's probably true. I don't care to prove it, but you're welcome to try prove any of it wrong. Not saying Demos are bad, I just don't think your comment chettjames are correct or valid.

Andy................... Nothing needs to be said. Your doing it all yourself. Have fun with that chimp.

mmmm cake and aluminum filings. What were we talking about..

G1s when they first came out cost $3800au. In two years the three I know of that had been sold had no money spent on them(apart from chain lube) in two years. and next to no time spent on them. They all sold for over $2500 aesthetically beaten but fine two +years later. I don't think any other two year old ridden hard bike would sell for that sort of money and still need nothing spent on it. None of the three bikes have had anything spent on them another tear later with new owners as far as I know. New chain maybe with a new build, but original rear and Alfine sprockets. So that means they cost $650au to own for the first two years. Discounting devaluation, they cost nothing to run in three years. None have had the Alfines serviced as far as I know. This isn't amazing or anything, or saving much money. But it shows they don't cost you anything in the long run, and save you a lot of stress, and riding time. I have explained above how easy the gears are to tune, takes all of a few seconds at best, to a few minutes if gyou need to change more cable then the barrel adjuster permits. and tensioning the chain takes maybe ten minutes. Bith are done every few months at the most extreme of cases. Nobody bothers servicing the Alfines, but if you did, it's take about three beers tops, or you could buy a new one for the cost of a new fancy mech and cassette and chain. This would be after what would be years of riding for most. It's really a no brainer as far as maintenance and running costs go. No chain guide shenanigans either.

I think I and others have expressed why quite enough without redoing it. And I really don't think it's more complex than a suspension design dictated to by a chainline and current fad in sprocket sizes. Deraileurs are not a simple solution either, they're a barstadization of logic, that only work because it's so refined, and even still, they're far from perfect. I'm pretty sure the average life span of a new derailleur won't differ much from an XT mech of ten years ago. Those clutch forces are going somewhere. Having the shifting mechanism bending a chain under load from side to side and forcing that chain to ram into another gear is not logical, no matter what amazing advancements are made. Have a look at a chain in granny gear on the back from the back of the bike. Look at it's angle to the front chain ring, do you really feel this is the most logical way to lock out suspension from working as efficiently? A bent chain as a lockout mechanism, wearing out itself and the sprockets every time you hit a bump or bounce. I've not given it much thought, but off the top of my head, Have an electric sensor to activate firmer damping only when pedaling if you want to replicate the lower gear anti squat you talk of. You could have the increased damping not effect bump performance any more than chain torque does. Or have a mechanical system like the Kona magic link. I'm sure people wouldn't care for it. I really don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about myself. For XC racers, keep a mech if you really think it's better for their suspension design. For the rest of us, let us have our way more durable, less money sucking, reliable, slightly less efficient(yet to really be proven until the big companies got on board), simpler to use and live with gearbox bikes that we can shift anytime anywhere without half the worry of failure. Ram that sucker into a bike with a slightly higher pivot point so it bobs less.

Bad for cornering is taking for granted the fact there's a very adaptable component to the package, the rider. It's not a race car, or other machine. It's a bike + rider, who can change their weight distribution. Zerodes corner fine, just slightly different braking and body positioning is adapted once you've done a few runs, your brain does it naturally. This applies to very bike to some extent. You can make the back of a Zerode squat by raking, changing the geometry for cornering to what you want. Have you spoken to "people", NO, well don't express what they're thinking like the OP did. Stick to facts. The importance of light weight is an over exaggerated marketing misconception. Sure it makes the bike feel more fun. Make you faster? Well, how much? Same with any possible extra friction from a gearbox. You really think it'll make more negative difference if it does exist than the pros of a gearbox always having perfect shifting, and being able to get in the right gear any time quickly? I think not. Mountain bikes should be simple and reliable. Not some fragile piece of crap letting us down all the time. It's about riding not shopping remember.