DrFlow

@rbarbier12: ROFL

@tgrummon: e-13 != DT Swiss

@tantrumcycles: The smaller the rear wheel the higher the horizontal part of the impact caused by obstacles on trails, right? In this case the rear wheels size will not have as big an influence to bump absorption like in traditional designs. If you use a smaller wheel you will have higher horizontal forces enabling the movement of the missing link and therefore changing the leverage at the shock while when using a bigger diameter wheel the general rollover resistance will be smaller. Did you do any calculations on that subject?

Ask Gee...

The Schladming parts look mind blowing.

@jrocksdh: another proof for boostcrap ;-)

@Warburrito: Yeah, because existing 20x110 was not as god as 15x100... That whole (boost)crap came up with stupid wagon wheels being noodles.

@bonkywonky: You sure? Forward geometry promoted a 35 mm length stem, not a 35 mm diameter bar clamp area.Or am I wrong?

[QUOTE PB] In the last few years, we’ve seen a lot of proliferation in mountain bikes. There are now the wheel sizes, there’s travel, etc. The variables multiply year-on-year it seems. Do you think this is an ongoing trend or do you think mountain biking will come back more towards a more settled state again?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE P. Ducrot] It has to. The way the industry is going now is totally crazy. No dealer, no consumer has the overview anymore. The dealers would have to stock so many bikes just to help the consumer understand what they want to purchase. As an industry, we have to concentrate in the future because at the moment, we have gone too far. The dealers are overwhelmed by products, and so are we, we have to do so much development right now. We have to concentrate. That’s true.[/QUOTE] And then one heads to their components brand site and sees 35mm stems... the next senseless standard, that makes no sense from an engineer's pov. *facepalm* Heretics