Carbon Fiber Valve Stems, An Improved Dropper, and 6D's Updated Helmets - Interbike 2017

Sep 21, 2017
by Mike Levy  
Interbike 2017

Interbike 2017


X-Fusion's Manic dropper post proved to be a winner when I reviewed it earlier this year. Not only did it offer flawless performance and a light lever feel due to its actuation linkage, the thing is always reliable. In fact, it's still running trouble-free to this day on a tester's bike, making it a bit of a surprise performer. Regardless, X-Fusion made some big updates to the Manic for 2018, including answering the call for a much-requested 150mm-travel version to go with the 125mm stroke model that I reviewed. Sorry, no 170mm-travel version yet.


Interbike 2017
Interbike 2017


And speaking of length, they've also managed to shorten the Manic by a handful of millimeters via a new one-piece head design that replaces the previous iteration's that was bonded onto the upper tube. One thing that hasn't changed is the price: the Manic still sells for $199 USD.



Interbike 2017
Interbike 2017


This one is for the real bike dorks out there, including myself. FAV Equipment comes from the brain of Tomo Ichikawa, the guy who designed the awesome Clever Standard tire lever that has a built-in quick-link tool; this time Tomo had turned his attention to valve stems. His carbon fiber valve stem - yes, carbon fiber - weighs a barely-there 2.8-grams, which is about half the weight of an equivalent length aluminum presta stem. I know we're talking single digit grams here, but those who spend deep into the four digits on a set of carbon wheels might want some matching valve stems. Tomo plans to offer a few different lengths, both presta and schrader versions, and pricing is still to be decided on.

Tomo's other trick is an aluminum valve stem that he says can't be plugged up by sealant. A schrader valve is spring-loaded, so they snap shut as soon as you're not forcing air through them, but a presta valve depends on air pressure to push it closed. This isn't a problem 99-percent of the time, but it can be when tire sealant manages to build up inside the valve and prevent it from closing. Tomo's valve uses a tiny rubber tube (not pictured) to preload the core and push it shut when you're not pumping air through it, just like a schrader valve.




Interbike 2017


6D, the helmet brand known for their dual-shell design, recently won the Head Health Challenge III's $500,000 grand prize in partnership with Dynamic Research for their Omni-Directional Suspension (ODS) technology. The design is essentially two separate helmet shells, one inside the other, that are joined by rubber dampers that let the outer shell to move independently of the inner shell. 6D says that the design allows for three-dimensional displacement of the inner shell upon an impact, which ''uncouples the impact force at the outer shell from the riders head.''

They've since made some updates to their ODS system, including going to differently shaped dampers in certain areas that provide movement more in tune with what's required, a change that's come about directly from their work for the Head Health Challenge.


Interbike 2017
Interbike 2017


Views: 4,715    Faves: 1    Comments: 0






208 Comments

  • + 102
 After reading the pole interview the other day about how carbon waste is classed as "ocean fill" I can honestly say I'll never buy a carbon bike product. It's an unnecessary material to be using in a supposadly green past time.
  • + 35
 That's exactly it. Unnecessary.
  • - 126
flag Kramz (Sep 21, 2017 at 0:08) (Below Threshold)
 Where do you think all these things (materials) come from? Do they fly here from outer space, and magically pollute the earth? No, they're literally the same as if you put a wood stick in the bed of your truck, and threw it out in another location.
  • + 70
 @Kramz: that's not the point!! That's like saying radioactive waste didn't just fly here from space,it's already here and is just like a leaf falling from a tree!! Some waste is acceptable as it can be reused or recycled. Carbon is pretty useless once it's served it's original purpose. And with one of the biggest factory's in Asia,who make carbon products for the biggest bike company's saying the waste is essentially dumped at sea is not f*cking acceptable!!!
  • + 77
 Your sentiment is honorable but... Are you going to only be buying bamboo bikes?

Remember mtbing isnt in any way green, even if you dont use carbon. Alu extraction is very damaging to the environment even if its waste can be reused. vimeo.com/27586761 Weigh up the whole journey of extraction, production and disposal before flag waving your material choice.
  • + 15
 @Kramz That's simplifying it quite a lot. Wood is a renewable material that will fully degrade. Carbon is made from chemicals and is a plastic does. Aluminium is fully recyclable whereas carbon fiber becomes lower quality when re-cycled and can't be used for the same applications. Hey, I own a carbon frame, bars and cranks so I'm not one to preach, but @mikelee is right.
  • + 1
 @Karve: aye since the introduction of alloy in the sport we have nothing left to say our equipment is ecologically friendly. Move aside for the podge on the ebike
  • + 37
 Mate, I understand where you're at but you need to understand the bigger picture. Or maybe don't, cause then you would be walking around naked. Alloy production uses 3% of the worlds energy supply, not to mention that it's all unearthed through strip mining. This isn't so bad where green energy is used but in Australia alluminium smelting accounts for 13% of their energy use, which is predmoinately prodyced by coal. It's embodied energy is around ten times greater than that of carbon. I choose to use alloy in situations where carbon doesn't provide much comparative benefit, due to alloy being easily recyclable. But you need to understand that bikes in general are very environmentally unfriendly. If we can work out a way to produce carbon without utilising such toxic glues, and a way to recycle it cost efficitively, it'll be more sustainable then alloY. Carbon already has a much lower full life impact than steel in applications such as aircrafts where the reduced weight substantially reduces the amount of fuel required to fly the plane
  • + 0
 @willbam: alloy production is also extremely dirty. Plus I have never had an alloy frame last a full three seasons of riding. Longevity is another part of the equation.
  • + 4
 @willbam: and furthermore there are friendly resins available for a long time already. Look up first compound bows.... The Huns
  • + 2
 Sorry automesscorrect. Meant the hun composite bow.
  • + 2
 @Keit: yeah bro, I total agree! The more i learn about alloy production the more i relaise it's probably one of the least environmentally friendly materials around! Hence my rant about how environmentally unfriendly alloy is! you're not wrong, if you ride hard, it's unlikely you'll get more than 3 years out of a frame. However, it's different for riders of lesser ability and it'd always re-weldable for general use. It gets depressing talking too much about environmental impact - if we talk much further into it we should get naked and go live in a hut made out of fronds
  • + 18
 @Keit: I understand and accept many of the points you are making but, to say you have never heard of an alloy frame lasting more than 3 seasons?!!? That seems ridiculous.
  • + 7
 @Keit: Yes aluminium is nasty to produce but once made it's almost infinitely recyclable. Leo made this point in the Pole article; once you spend the resource and pollution cost to make aluminium, you've added to the pool of material which can be reused again and again. Of course not making any or using any would be better for the planet, however we have to be realistic in where we focus our energy when it comes to trading off between ecological living and fun times...
  • + 31
 The real question is why haven't we moved on to hemp fiber yet. Henry Ford did it in the 1930's until the oil and steel mafia "informed" him which materials he should use. We HAVE all the soulutions for most of our problems but our f*cking governments are sucking the oil/banks/pharma mafias money pole. We can vote with our dollars, but no bike companies seem willing enough to challenge the status quo except in their marketing.
  • + 11
 @Boardlife69: hit the nail on the head mate. Once politics stops being the deciding factor in our economic decisions we can really begin to get things right...
  • + 20
 So I drive 2+ hours each way to be driven up a steep hillside in a land rover or tractor trailer and ride down several times, I don't try and convince anyone or myself that my favourite past time is in any way ecological.
  • + 1
 @Boardlife69: Do you really think hemp fibre coated in resin would be any more recyclable or biodegradable?
  • + 4
 So I’m curious what kind of vehicle do you drive?? I’m assuming an all electric vehicle?? And you don’t drink any water from plastic bottles right? I love how people like to take a moral high ground when they neglect the other areas of there life that are much worse.
  • + 26
 If you REALLY care that much, then don't have children. Overpopulation is the root cause of all environmental problems.
  • + 5
 Hilarious. No carbon fibre for me......... Just everything that goes along with the production metals/alloys instead...... because hey, it can be recycled (except how do you know it will be recycled). The mere production of the stuff probably outweighs the recyclable benefits anyway given most people will never strip down a frame and take it along to a recycling plant.

What about all the rubber, plastics and other metals involved in all the other parts on your bikes? Unless you carry that outlook through every single facet of bikes and frankly also in everything you do in your daily life you really can't get on your high horse about it.
  • + 12
 Agree. Except carbon fibre valve stems. I need those. I really do. Actually, when I bought my first real mtb back in 1995 (It was in the past century when I think about it now. Go figure.) I told to myself "Yep. Bike is not bad. Not bad at all. But those stems.. why they don't make them out of carbon!? Why!? So that we can ride our bikes like a civilised people.
  • + 8
 @mgolder: You know it'll be recycled (or at least not dumped, if the frame is ever actually scrapped) because recycled aluminium is very valuable. Think of all the aluminium cans people use and then consider that extracting aluminium is several times more energy-intensive/ expensive than melting down old parts - you don't want the raw material for billions of cans to be any more expensive than it has to be.

Machining shops do literally sweep their metal chips off the floor and sell them, because that's perfectly good material that other people can re-process and use.
  • + 14
 @mgolder: I just re-read the thread...no one here is on a high horse. This is actually a pretty decent discussion and I think it's a good one to have. Anytime we can question the impact we cause and be self-critical of our actions is great. That doesn't mean we have to abandon anything that causes any damage, but I think there's value in always asking the question whether something is worth it. To imagine that the only universally correct decision is the one that I have selected, is no better than to fool myself into thinking that I am not responsible for the consequences of my decisions, or that my actions don't have any consequences.

The best we can all do is to really challenge ourselves to be selective about what we determine that we "need," to purchase what seems to offer the best compromise between social/environmental damage and meeting that "need," and to maintain it and repair it so it has the longest possible service life.

@veero: I'm an ecologist for an environmental conservation organization; I drive a full-sized pickup a minimum of three hours a day, sometimes as much as seven hours or more. The irony does not escape me...apparently, even the ecology isn't ecological any more.
  • + 5
 @mgolder: you're not getting the point! It's the fact that the factory said they throw the waste in the ocean!! Carbon can be recycled but it appears that one of the biggest factory's in Asia just dumps its waste in the ocean. This wouldn't happen with metals as it's easy to recycle and get some sort of money back. I'm guessing with carbon it's not worth the bother if a factory that would produce tons of waste still see's if more profitable to dump it in the sea! No one is saying that the production of alloys is clean,but at least once produced it can be used thousands of times. Where as carbon gets weaker and weaker the more times it's recycled. So a bike frame couldn't be reused for a project requiring the carbon to have the same strength as when it was used to make a frame or wing etc. And if factories are dumping waste carbon in the sea then I guess there's no use for carbon parts once it's broken. So where to all the snapped bars,frames etc end up!!!! Land fill at best.
  • + 3
 Ya'll need to keep in mind that the president of a company is going to say whatever he thinks improves his company's sales the most. Maybe Pole has a point; Maybe it doesn't. In the words of any good principle investigator: More information is required.
  • - 4
flag billyballa33 (Sep 21, 2017 at 7:29) (Below Threshold)
 @axleworthington: hope that was sarcasm. Hard to tell on the keyboard. If you weren't then maybe you could lead by example and practice what you preach and jump off a bridge or something....you know, the honorable thing for the planet. Jeez!
  • - 3
 @billyballa33: Rule no 1 with saving the planet: "Don't be a dick". It goes both for "wasteful" people and for eco warriors. However due to physical limitations of human ability to limit his waste generation, if you truly believe that "waste should be stopped" - jump off the bridge. Now. When I hear someone saying things like: use of diapers is unethical i do hope he falls off the bridge. Survives. Gets driven over by a truck. And survives...

To anyone buying carbon fiber valves... sort yourself out mate... if not, PLEASE DO go all the way and buy carbon fiber bolts for your rotors and for the stem (they do exist). It will sort you out.

@mikelee wrote:"I'll never buy a carbon bike product. It's an unnecessary material to be using in a supposadly green past time" - like regularly driving a car to the riding spots - ease up mate... mountain biking is NOT a green past time, by any means. if you do think so, please evangelize Motorbikers... go Westboro Baptist Church on their arses.
  • + 3
 I wouldn't buy any carbon parts after reading that too, but I don't think by any means that I'm making a difference, not even the smallest one. It's just to feel less guilty about my contribution to poison the earth.
  • + 1
 @mikelee: Do you drive an electric vehicle or use solar power? If so, stop, because there are probably other areas in your life where you do things that aren't environmentally friendly. You wouldn't want someone on pinkbike to call you a hypocrite in order to justify themselves when they feel the weight of their conscience.
  • + 1
 @allballz: Where does the electricity come from? You should consider using that hot take to write an exposé.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: last time I checked once I've finished using my car it doesn't get thrown in the sea!! Carbon is not needed in our sport. The benifits don't out way the negatives in my opinion. It's not much lighter or stronger in terms of uses in bikes. I'm not saying it can't be lighter or stronger but regarding its use in the bike world,it'll knock a few lbs off already stupidly light bikes.
  • - 1
 Also, everyone, think about your grandchildren when talking about saving the planet. They may not be biological beings... Think 100 years from now ok?... please... If technological progress keeps accelerating as it has since tens of years, then there is no fkng way in the world, that post biological life forms will not become reality. The drive to create them, eventually become them is written into how molecules behave if given enough time under right conditions, it is evolution. Catastrophical events slow it down, but each catastrophy, creates a new, better breed, it's a fact. Dinosaurs evolved because more promitive creatures died due to Permian extinction, we would not exist if dinosaurs wouldn't be wiped out by an asteroid. Our fragile bodies will never leave this planet to populate universe. Never. We will never terraform Mars or any other planet/moon because it is energy ineffective but most importantly, because the time scale of our life is too short. Nobody will build a base on Mars with holistic idea of propagating human existence, when terraforming would take hundreds of thousands of years considering unlimited access to resources. It is simply much easier to change an organism to fit the existing environment. An organism that does not need air to breathe, food to eat, and is resilient to radiation. We build such objects since 50 years. The only missing bit is just needs a brain and ability to repair and improve itself to withstand cosmic time scales. And if you think it's not happening and accelerating at insane pace, check out Google or Facebook algorythms. Humanity and it's ability to appreciate the beauty of nature is doomed, NO MATTER WHAT. So now go out and be a good dude and girl, experience this feeling, you are possibly second last generation to be able to romantize stuff. Ironically by caring for environment you are just accelerating that process. Have no delusions about that. And please don't find it scary. The moment we make clean nuclear fusion affordable, is the end of humanity. It is called "post scarcity economy". We are not in it. At least not in any other form than Monkeys in the Zoo. By which holistic principle should we try to stop this process? You can't stop it.

So the product "launch" I am most excited about for 2018 is James Webb Space Telescope. It will be f*cking amazing.
  • + 8
 if you really want to be green, always buy used bikes.
  • + 5
 Floating carbon and plastic bits in the ocean are near impossible to clean up, and get stuck in fish and bird bellies (google ocean garbage animal photos). I think I'll take my energy-consuming aluminum bike over an ocean-filling carbon bike any day.
  • + 1
 Personally, Carbon frames are totally worth it. Carbon valve stems...not so much.
  • + 2
 @ecologist: Great comments. I appreciate your sentiment and wholeheartedly agree. I definitely know there are things I can do better as we all can and it's not about going completely to one side or the other. There has to be balance in everything. I try to minimize my impact in the places that I can, but I will never completely erase it. I try to be realistic, but always consider what I use, what I do and encourage others to do the same. I certainly won't call anyone out for their preferences or lifestyle, but I will always try to do what I can so that our future generations might have a bit of a chance after the impact we've made so far...

Humans had no idea that we were making that kind of impact on our planet when we began, but through education and innovation hopefully we can change it for the better. Or we move to Mars and ruin another ecosystem...Smile
  • - 3
 @fumando: but the point remains. Caring for the environment and other human beings is everything and at the same time nothing more, but dying in a decent manner, with as little regret as possible. It is worth a lot. Possibly the most important thing every single one of us can do to and for ourselves. Most "ecologists" try to be good people. But it is entirely irrelevant in greater scheme of things. It's your own self value that is at stake here. So is having fun...

Your last sentence makes no sense what so ever.
  • + 1
 @Keit: Just because natural resins exist doesn't mean they will do what we need them to do with carbon or some other modern material. It would be cool if they did.
  • + 1
 @mikelee: You're too hung up on the carbon dumped into the sea. If you think that the only waste from a factory in China that isn't handled in an environmentally friendly manner- then you're a fool.

What AL frame do you ride? Was it made in a country with very strict environmental laws- if not your AL is no better than the carbon, the ONLY difference is what happens to it at the end of it life.

If that's all you have to stand on- it ain't much.

If you want to get on a high horse, I wonder how many on here preaching the AL frame over carbon used cloth diapers for their kids.
  • + 3
 Pay your toll, sell your soul Pound for pound it costs more than gold
  • + 2
 @mgolder: It's not getting on a high horse to say its a good thing to reduce waste. When you break a carbon part it goes in the dump, when you break an aluminum part it goes in the recycling. Both took lots of energy and environmental impact to produce, but one is an easy material to reclaim and costs less to begin with. Sounds like a good thing to me. I'm gonna bike either way, why not do it for less money with slightly lower impact?
  • + 0
 Sorry for the tripple post... not sure what happened there...
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: exactly, as if aluminium frame paint or CNC chips, couldn't be dumped straight into the river, not to mention all sht that comes from facilities extracting it. It is highly possible that carbon frames and components made in US, Canada or EU are way greener than average aluminium or even steel frame coming from bottom end Asian factories. Simply because we have tighter waste management regulations. Also it is more than unfair for Pole to go some factory with aim to produce frames in such "environment" and then come back with moralizing sht. Come on. WTF did they expect?! .. It's like buying meat in a supermarket and then at some point getting shocked after watching a documentary about meat production. It is easy to moralize against carbon fibre when it is often something expensive as hell. Some people will just do it to feel better about themselves for not being able to afford it. And often those who shout most are the ones who feel diminished. Complexes release lots of energy. So be careful with condemning sht
  • + 2
 Awesome link. Thanks for sharing that... @Karve:
  • + 1
 @arrowheadrush: that's what I do too. Save on BS sales tax.
  • + 0
 I've never liked carbon in any Mtb application, but if the environmental concern is what gets you tards excited about ditching it - I'll take it!
  • + 3
 LOL @ all the riders hating on carbon bikes' environmental impact from their SMARTPHONES and COMPUTERS.
  • + 0
 @Kickmehard: none of my bike frames made of alloy have lasted me over three seasons. just my experience. not speaking for others.
  • + 4
 @Keit: Wow. I'd love to see where you ride.

Conversely, i've had 10 year old alloy frames that still were good as new.
  • + 3
 @sourmix: I am currently on a steel fs bike for the do it all jobs. it outpaces most current items available. I also use carbon where is see real benefits. In fact I had one of the first carbon frames available and have been down this road a few times. never went back up it as the steed was in pieces. recycling still costs energy. a steel frame will last longer than an alloy frame....is much more ductile and impact resistant. balah balah balah. it was a meak point but aluminium production is extremely dirty in the first instance. steel slightly better but offers much better longevity. if we are going to speak of all materials available hint pinkbike for an educational piece (please research properly this time and don't give formula the first ever disc brake thumbs up again as one bad example ......one useful link: www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/metals
  • + 1
 walking around naked...did I leave the webcam on again. sorry. this one is free just for you I usually charge.
  • + 1
 @thedeathstar: yes I drive an electric car and my house has solar power and solar heating. We grow our own veg and raise our own live stock. My family tries it's best to be echo aware. However I know this isn't possible for some families and I'm not making a difference in the grand scheme of things. But hey,we're trying.
  • + 1
 @willbam: aviation technology compared with that of bikes...interesting. focus up here not down there
  • + 1
 @allballz: You say "Electric vehicles cause MORE POLLUTION DURING MANUFACTURE AND OPERATION (where does the electricity come from?) than an ICE puts out during it's entire lifetime." This is a common bit of mis-information.

From here: www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
"From cradle to grave, BEVs are cleaner. On average, BEVs representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration."
  • + 1
 @JustinVP: That report only takes into account emissions, not whole environmental impact. Due to manufacturing process, the longevity of batteries, and the partial recycling/partial disposal process, an EV is indeed worse than ICE in terms of whole environmental impact over it's lifetime. That's not even taking into account that EV's are largely being trashed after their 6-10 year battery lifespan is up due to the cost of battery replacement vs. value of the vehicle. That puts them off the charts in environmental impact.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: whether EV is worse than ICE at this moment is irrelevant. What is important is whether it can be made cleaner. What is even more important is where emission takes place. I live close to a highway. If pollution can be moved away from me, I'm happy. I'm being realistic here, idealists can go fk themselves.
  • + 2
 @axleworthington: Agreed. Or if you REALLY REALLY care, off yourself right now so there's one less person "ruining" the planet.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: can I still smoke bensons in the afterlife, o font of knowledge?
  • + 0
 @Earthmotherfu: not sure. Take some psychodelics and find out for yourself. I won't lie to you though... the man with 199 eyes and deer horns may tell you that smoking is bad for you.
  • + 2
 @billyballa33: axle was on the money. population growth being what it is, people should be smart enough to only replace themselves. would solve several long-term issues. that isn't sarcasm.
  • + 0
 Carbon fibre effectively traps carbon atoms, meaning they won't be available to bond with oxygen, creating greenhouse gases. The reality is that the carbon used in each frame would have been used as fuel otherwise, so in a sense we're fighting climate change, one carbon frame at a time.
  • + 2
 @mikelee:
A. You do realize how bad those batteries in your car are, right? You're not saving the world.. And you may be harming it worse than with a gas or diesel car.

B. f*ck off with all the exclamation marks already.
  • + 1
 @JustinVP: You need to research the researchers. From that paper:
Rachael Nealer is a Kendall Science
Fellow in the UCS Clean Vehicles Program.
David Reichmuth is a senior engineer in
the program. Don Anair is deputy director
and research director in the program.

So yea no bias I'm sure.
  • + 2
 Lol no one cares bro
  • + 2
 @willbam: well reasoned and accurate friend.
  • + 1
 @therealtylerdurden:Most of us live in cities and people get all sort of sicknesses and actually die from inhaling exhaust fumes. In many cities all over ther world it is advised not to exercise. Driving a car on the highway for an hour is equal to smoking a cigarette. That's for Sweden. So me driving with my kids for 5 hours in Poland is probably giving them a pack of cigarettes to share between themselves. I mean for fks sake... we progress, one step at a time. You can say that fusion takes more energy than it gives. It is true. Now. Not in 50 years.
  • + 1
 I am feeling the same way, but we all need to do our own reserch before jumping to conclusions.
Pink Bike, how about an unbiased well researched story on this? Or just show pictures of the five most popular bikes a some demo?
  • + 1
 @mgolder: Do you not have a recycling bin? Where do you put your old frames? Not having a go just curious. Rubber is a renewable resource. Plastics could be replaced by hemp composites using natural resins. No matter how green or not one is one can always look to ways to be greener. Bikes already piss on cars. What else can we do.
  • + 2
 Right?! I had a chance to chat with a Spank rep at Whistler last year and I asked why they dont do anything in carbon... simple answer, "it's not recyclable." For whatever reason it struck a cord with me and ever since then, no carbon, and it may make me a fan boy, but Spank everything.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I ride to my riding spot. I do use a borrowed van or truck to transport reclaimed wood for trail building though. Just had my utility bike with my trailer hitch stolen. Looking to upgrade to a better used trailer and get a removable motor to tow stuff instead. Not totally green but greener. Being green is an aspiration not a destination.
  • + 1
 @allballz: Manufacture yes. Operation no. Reduce the manufacturing by converting a used vehicle instead. Then its just the batteries and motor. Both recyclable. Still better to keep an old ICE on the road. Maybe salvage a wrecked Tesla driveline in the future.
  • + 2
 @arrowheadrush: What about new old stock? Buying used bikes means companies sell less bikes and reduce next years production. If these figures for production are based on last years sales are unsold inventory figured into this too?
  • + 2
 @alexsin: There has to be financial incentive to find out if they do. If one company uses natural resins that are equal to or better and people buy it over synthetic then others will follow.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: I'd need a drink , we're all doomed Wink
  • + 1
 This is definitely the best Pinkbike discussion of all times Big Grin

And guys.. did you notice how eloquent you all get when not talking about bikes?
  • + 2
 @Karve: @Karve: Thank you slapping these anticarbon-fanboys in the kisser. I am not saying that I am all for it but every product causes its own damage environmental. Anodizing, chroming, aluminum etc. All use chemicals to achieve their desired states. As for dumping at sea? Maybe their country should tighten up on its own policies or perhaps the bike companies purchasing from said company need to put their foot down or find a different manufacturer.
  • + 1
 @mikelee: hey man, that was sarcasm. Anyone with the "in for a penny, in for a pound, or you're a hypocrite" type argument about environmental impact is grade a dumbass.
  • + 3
 @mikelee: So, aluminum is recyclable except when you do so you actually create extremely toxic by products.
If the pole interview educated you to the evils of carbon production shouldn't you also learn about how the other products that are used to make a bike effect the environment ?
Aluminum smelters, rubber factories, etc..
Feel good about riding your bike. It's a healthy life choice and it saves carbon emissions but...
If you're going to take a stand against a product make certain that your personal alternative is actually a better solution.
  • + 1
 @therealtylerdurden: you do realise I was being sarcastic right? Like I drive an electric car and grow my own veg etc!!!!! Here's another! My whole point was that I'm saying it's not necessary to have carbon in the sport at all. Not that it's any better or worse. It's just not needed. So now we have another way of contributing to world pollution because you want to save a few grams.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: bahahahahaha yeah dude, totally. Wtf
  • + 0
 @mikelee: yeah, no, totally obvious. f*cking nutjob.
  • + 2
 @willbam: You're spot on about the embodied energy of Aluminium, but the difference is that the Aluminium is 99% recyclable, versus only about 70% for steel, and -let's be honest- basically nobody is recycling rarbon, and I'm not seeing any commitment for Investment there either. But the biggest misconception is when people talk about "carbon" they think of the bike frame itself, and not the piles of bagging, peel plies, Infusion mesh breather fabric, trimmed material, mould release agents and all the other gumpf that is needed for making carbon bits, not to mention all the parts that didn't make it because of quality issues (although the in-plane undulations in my Race Face SixC handlebars are pretty shocking by aerospace standards).
  • + 2
 @mikelee: If carbon is not needed in sport, I'd like you to justify the sport of mountain biking to me. Can't you just run in merino wool or exercise on a bar? Throw rocks at distance or at a target? Swim? Cold bath? Hunting? There's plenty of exercise not requiring expensive, pollution heavy equipment, allowing you to tap into your hormonal system for optimal functioning of your mind and body.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: all over Europe, UK, North America, North Africa, India. Do you actually ride ?
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: ever heard of material fatigue in heat treated alloy's ?
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: not necessary in terms of what it brings and what it replaces. We're pretty much at the peak of what's achievable regarding bike design. For me,carbon doesn't offer enough of a benefit to be using instead of the materials already in existence. The fact it's not really recycled makes it worse. You know as I do how often geo changes on bikes or new widths of wheel sizes etc etc. At least with old dated metal bikes it can be reused,where as a carbon bike can't or won't be due to costs. So I'd rather ride a slightly heavier bike. Carbon use in our sport is all about money. I'm sure one day all top bikes will be carbon with all the components made of carbon too.
  • + 3
 @Keit: Well seeing as a I am an engineer by trade, yes I am very familiar with fatigue life. As such, I know it has no relevance whatsoever to bike frames of any kind (and this includes motorcycles). Fatigue life of alloys is an issue in fields like aviation and civil engineering, where service loads are measured in tons. For a 6-7lb bike frame that carries a 160-220lb load, fatigue life is a complete non-issue.

You could ride any given alloy frame six hours a day for 20 years and you wouldn't even put a dent in it's fatigue life.

Now this is not taking into account the effect of material compromise due to impact. But that has nothing to do with an alloy's fatigue life.
  • + 2
 @mikelee: environmental concern is far down on the list of faults of carbon for me. The only place where I see carbon making sense is frame's front triangle and eventual links. Then I dig carbon rims for XC. The rest is a joke in my opinion, particularly carbon stems and cranks. Then AM/DH carbon rims are almost as heavy as alu and offer a harsh ride. In most cases it is just too expensive for me to care.
  • + 3
 Some of you guys say that if we already do something with high environmental impact (riding cars, having children, what not), then we don't need to bother about being high impact in other areas (bike choice). I would say it's the opposite! Sure we can't be environmentally friendly in all we do, but we can make choices and limit our impact. I ride a car to my trails, true. I will continue doing that because my life without it would be crap, but I can make choices in less important areas. Alloy or carbon, both bikes will ride, so I choose the one that has less impact (whatever that is, subject is complicated).
  • + 3
 @Slabrung: I hope you wrote it after smoking weed... but just like you most environmentalists just want to feel good about themselves. And hey, the byproduct is less pollution. Why not...
  • + 0
 @Slabrung: The problem is that when you call out others on this subject, you end up sounding like my wife who gives me a hard time about leaving a 4w LED light bulb on when I leave the room for 30 seconds, and then insists on running a desk fan all night every night for background noise.

It's more about "return on investment" really. It's silly to seriously inconvenience yourself and others to reduce impact by a fraction of a percentage when you could easily eliminate other things in your life that make a much larger impact.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: fully agree with you on this! Common sense is a key word here Smile
  • + 0
 Driving your car to a ride is worse.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: if she makes a stink about any fluorescents being on, you can counter with the fact that fluorescents use as much energy just turning on as they do running for an hour.
  • + 0
 @JustinVP: Global warming is a myth... get off your high horse
  • + 0
 @ridehard84: please show me your proof that global warming is a myth. As far as I can see, the only scientific studies that suggest that humans are not having an effect on the climate have been discredited.
  • + 2
 @dicky1080: dicky are you familiar with the Russian and French experiments that took place at lake Vostok Antarctica? They drilled down two miles into the ice and took samples to extrapolate historical climate data.

Here's a link to the study that essentially debunks anthropogenic climate change

cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
  • + 2
 @otto99: Vostok station does not exist you globe head shill. What else, moon landing took place?
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: next thing you know I'll be claiming the earth is an oblate spheroid
  • + 1
 @otto99: that study says that there is far more Co2 in the air now than at any time in their ice core.
  • + 2
 @otto99: s what you basically mean is that it is impossible to measure the total amount of co2 in atmosphere, then calculate how much co2 human activity is emitting at the moment? In this way get an idea how much humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet? That's something not taking into account ice cores at all. You know, there are people who can program GPS satellites and receivers including relativity theory. Home grown astronomers that can calculate a passing of one of possibly billions of Asteroids in Kuiper belt passing one of gadzillion stars in the sky and take a few photos of this particular "eclipse" lasting 0.3seconds, but nobody thought of my co2 in/emitted thing? My gawd I am a genius... so now to the ice cores. They found signs of Romans smelting led, they found that Genghis Khan killed so many humans, so that carbon footprint of humanity got lowered, I mean it is that precise, but they can't figure out whether 8 billions of humans influence climate? Jesus Christ... I mean Jesus fkng Christ...
  • + 2
 @dicky1080: You may have missed it, but within the data you will find that neither temperatures nor CO2 levels are anywhere near their peak over earths history. During the Cretaceous period, about 145-66 million years ago,mean atmospheric CO2 content was about 1700 ppm. Thats six times what it was just before the industrial revolution. In October 2014 it was 395.93 ppm, still magnitudes lower than the Cretaceous period.

Mean surface temperature during the Cretaceous period was 18 degrees C, 4 degrees C higher than it is now!

The real reason the planet is warmer today is that it is normal for the earth to go through warming and cooling periods. It's been doing so for millions of years, long before man in habited this planet, much less started building factories.

During the Cretaceous period of slightly higher atmospheric CO2, and temperature levels, life was flourishing. Dinosaurs continued to dominate the land but new groups of mammals, birds, and flowering plants appeared.Contrary to what fake scientist tell you, hire CO2 levels are good for plants and warmer temperatures are good for life in general.

The samples from the research also show that increases and carbon dioxide always accompanied increases in temperature, but the increases in temperature always came first. That proves increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere didn't cause the warming. How could it have, if it didn't happen until after the warming? This knocks over the whole house of cards
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: I'm an engineer too, and of course you see fatigue life as an issue in bicycle frame design. When you're trying to make bike frames as light as feasible, fatigue is one of the design limits your flirting with. You try to minimize it by reducing stress risers and using sufficient material so your design stresses are well within fatigue limits, but one huge huck to flat that goes outside your design limits is going to bring your fatigue life way lower than expected. You can look at the cracks on many aluminum frames and see the distinctive pattern of fatigue fractures. If you're making material thin enough, it doesn't take loads in the tons to cause fatigue issues.
  • + 0
 @otto99: you are comparing apples to oranges. The issue is that "Earths ecosystem" is extremely complex and nobody can really tell what raise in temperature by a degree can do to the whole system. A small difference in near freezing temperature makes Asia-America ice bridge over Baering straight passable by humanoids or not. The boldness of life in face of asteroid wiping out dinosaurs 65mln years ago is one thing, a set of microscopic "coincidences" that made it possible for us to write this bullsht is another. Humans ARE changing the climate, not as much as fkng Siberian Traps or Yellowstone explosion, but they are. You can already see how little average temperature increase can do to tge power of hurricanes.

I can't believe I am writing this. Climate change deniers are necessary, they make climate science better. If Nasa tells me himans warm the planet up, I believe them. In tge same way a friend tells me that riding a fragile road bike at 60km/h is not as dangerous as it seemsto me. I just believe it, it seems sensible to do so. But currently in the face of evidence climate change deniers lack some fundamental deduction skills. Their lust for sensarion and conspiracy fks with them. Same sort of lack of fundamental scientific deduction that lead Hollywood to finance absolutely ridiculous sci-fi movies. Like oblivion. Aliens perform faster than light travel to come to Earth, invade it using clones, setup a sophisticated scam to convince clones they fight with the invader, all to harvest hydrogen out of Earths water... Hydrogen. The most common element in the fkng entire universe. Apparently they run out of it. And missed Jupiter on the way which is made almost entirely from it.

Ehhhhh....
  • + 1
 @therealtylerdurden: That was true about 30 years ago, but with the advent of electronic ballasts about 20 years ago, they use no more energy turning on than when they do in use.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: this was essentially what I was saying. Of course there is an environment issue however if you read my original post I stated that it's just not needed and where it is used only has marginal gains. The fact that it appears there is no method of dealing with waste was an eye opener as well. I don't use carbon because I don't feel there's much advantage. It's also expensive but that wouldn't put me off. But the final nail for me was the ocean fill comment.
  • + 2
 @TucsonDon: You are confusing fatigue life (the amount of time in which a given alloy form is able to maintain it's ductile strength within a given deviation), and material compromise. Damage to an alloy frame and defects are completely different things than alloy just "wearing out".

I.E. if you have a dent in your frame, that area is far more prone to failure than other intact areas. If you subject the frame to a landing force outside of it's limits, you'll damage the frame. Has nothing to do with fatigue life.
  • + 0
 @otto99: a quick Google search has thrown up a number of papers that show that the conclusions you mention drawn from this study are just not supported by the evidence.

At the end of the day, whether humans are the main driving force of climate change or not, our behaviour isn't helping and the way we treat our only home stinks. We should as a species be sorting our shit out by now. The only way change is going to happen is if each one of us changes, it's as simple as that.
  • + 2
 @mikelee: ocean fill, I mean please, how come bits of carbon are worse than paint? Wake up dude, all sort of companies in Asia throw all sorts of sht straight into the water, because they have so much cost pressure from Western clients and because many of them are uneducated. What do you think happens with all other waste from alu or steel frame production? Anodizing, you think they don't just pour the solution straight to the drain? All the chips from machining? Haven't you watch the documentaries about clothing industry? Bleech, pigments, straight into rivers, kids in the area getting cancer, all sorts of diseases. Food production-pesticides, chemical fertilizers, all getting into ground water, fkng ground water, that takes hundreds of years to replenish. Sorry, mate that thing with carbon ocean fill is being smallest and hypocritical.. Jesus, People educate yourselves... it just scares me, because I consider myself a careless idiot, yet more and more often I find that it is me who knows more...

But again, environment is not on top of my list to worry about when it comes about my kids future. AI or just malicious software able to put down the economy, Katla volcano on iceland. We live in an extremely fragile system. Money diseappear from our bank accounts, food stops coming to supermarkets, we have panic within 3 days and madmax within a month. All these decent people around you, all of us, have programs installed in our brains that will make us behave like aggressive chimps when sht goes down. Panic, violence, genocide. The guy gelling me that military is unnecessary, the only force able to contain a mass panic, I want him dead. And all those dumb students shouting black lives matter, women rights, they will be the first ones to form death squads.

Sorry, mate, bad weather, carcinogens in fish just doesn't scare me enough... I can do something about it but at the same time I realize the incredible limitations of my position.
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I didn't read all your post,sorry it's way too long. Anyway I'll stress again that my primary issue is the use of carbon is not needed in mountainbiking. So why bother,it's just another pollutant we're contributing to. Along with all the issues with making bikes we already create.
  • + 1
 @TucsonDon: huh. I had no idea! Thanks man
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I need another drink , the truth hurts too much ! Don't be sorry , can I be in the women's gang ? Smile
  • + 1
 @Matt115lamb: please be sarcasm...
  • + 3
 @dicky1080: That alludes to the truth...a quick google search will find papers by respected members of the scientific community to support whichever narrative you subscribe to. There is no "consensus" in either direction. The truth is, quite simply - we don't know.

That's not even addressing the truly scary part, and the whole reason that this "global warming" narrative exists...world governments don't want us to realize that no matter who's right - whether we are solely responsible for runaway warming of our planet, or that we have nothing to do with it, or anything in between those two extremes - there's nothing we can do about it. No amount of electric cars, solar/wind/hydro power, and planting gardens in one's back yard, are going to stop what's already been set in motion.

And finally, there's that pesky little reality, the fact that absolutely none of this matters at all because we'll all be obliterated by a meteor or solar flare long before the weather does us in.
  • - 2
 @TheRaven: yes, you'll find both sides of the argument and lots in between. It's just that one side is wrong. But it's not as bad as in nutrition or fitness world.

Solar flare - BS. There's virtually no danger for civilization ending solar flare, maybe major communication disruption. There's no fossil evidence for mass extinction caused by solar flare. Such event would leave a rather fat footprint in geological evidence. Nasa claims they have a good watch over comets metheors and asteroids that could cause a global cataclysm. Not much on close time scales. They may surely miss stuff that can demolish a city (like one that exploded over Tschelyabynsk or Tunguska) When it comes to Tsunamis demolishing cities at the ocean shores, well metheors have hard time competing with land slides (Canary islands) earth quakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or... sea level rise.

Volcanoes themselves are potent enough to cause severe global famine, yet again, not a civilization ender. For instance Katla on Iceland can fk up Europe but (and make India and China rich)

Watching current Hurricane trends, the 10% increase in severity may significantly depopulate Carribean basin, after all, building bunkers takes more money than shotgun houses...

Now speaking of time scale is important. It is rather likely that within 100 years Earth will give rise to super intelligent machines. Once AGIs get access to virtually unlimited source of energy like fusion, they will evolve expof*ckingnentinally. Give them ability to evolve in space, where temperature is much lower than on Earth, which means computation will require less energy for cooling and "we" will start population of the Solar system. Asteroid mining, Dyson spheres. Humans are not there.

The only thing we can worry about is whether we will be able to give birth to super machines before we f*ck up our environment so bad, that we will have to spend most of our energy to care for ourselves. Again: our grand grand "children" will not need clean air to breathe. Predicting their future though is an exercise in futility. That will be such a paradigm shift, that we have no way to predict what it will be. It may destroy us, it may build a space ship and fly off to a location much more suitable for it after stripping us from giant chunk of valuable resources. Time is a tiny problem for it, it will have no problem travelling to Alpha Centauri for a hundred years. One thing is sure. We will have as much to say about controlling it as a chimp in the zoo can say something to a zoo keeper.

We are 8 billion people, way too much for f*cking carbon frames or figgets to make a change. Nevertheless you can choose whether you want to die as an a*shole, a boring prohibitive prick or cool dude. I personally am planning hypothermia in the mountains around being 65. I do hope that until then Sweden will take finger out of its arse, legalize most drugs, as well as testosterone. I want potent weed, dmt and testosterone shots as accessible as fkng Aspirine before I get 45.
  • + 2
 One thing that really annoys me though is people who are so disconnected from nature that they romanticize it beyond limits of any common sense. Like animal lovers. Those people simply forgot why we humans have inate drive to control nature. Because it used to fkng kill us. So those a*sholes sit in comfort of their homes, go out in goretex jackets and moralize to hunters, loggers and others what they should and shouldn't do. I've been there, I've been that eager green-leftie a*shole and I stopped because it is 90% talking completely out of your arse, 9% quoting facts and 1% doing. There's just that much shit a man can keep inside him without getting infected by it, to significantly lower the quality of his life, while still doing 90% of daily activities exactly like people he hates. I know some eco warriors and they are either messed up or just deal with similar hormonal imbalance as I did.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: probably one of the wisest posts by you, Waki. Cheers.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: Solar flares are not BS. We are being hit by them constantly. It's just a matter of time before we get hit by a big one. It could happen in a thousand years or it could happen next year.

We can watch meteors all day. Great. Hows that going to stop them from hitting us? You make it sound like you are saying "oh we're good, we'll see a meteor well before it hits us". Great...so we'll know well in advance that we're going to be annihilated. Now I can sleep at night.

You need to keep science's study of earth's history in perspective. We have a handle on a fraction of a percent of what has happened on this planet since it came into being.
  • + 0
 DMT yaaaaas, and Ill sit by idle waiting for John Conner and the Terminator to appear and save us form the machines! Awesome post... I can't believe I read it all, but I'm glad I did. @WAKIdesigns:
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: read or rather hear more on the subject on youtube. Just do a quick google search. I personally love that astro stuff.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: solar flares, stellar wind exist, but we are living next to a star that is just big and active enough, that is tilted right enough, at a distance from us that is just right and our atmosphere and magnetosphere is just right, for those phenomena to not be threatening our existence or state of economy on any bigger scale. For example, stellar activity is one of loopholes in Interstellar. I'm super happy that movie was made and love the concepts in it, however no life could even dream to exist in proximity of a black hole of that size. There's too much going on. Radiation and immense amount of all sorts of debris, remnants from sht that was torn apart by the black hole. Solar system is old and stable enough, located in quiet enough district of the galaxy for space debris to be settled down. Nasa tracks plenty of near earth objects, they are not 100% sure but still quite sure that there's no civilization ender flying aroumd, after all the last one visited Earth 65mln years ago.

That makes other factors like volcanic activity or rise of post biological life to be better potential killers or paradigm shifters.

As a part time psychopath and existentialist I deeply enjoy the subject of human race annihilation. I am however far from being qualified to give you more info on flares and near earth objects. Google and youtube provide plenty of reliable information on the subject. Hollyowood qnd discovery channel, not so much. I'm deep into this sht since few years now. Lowered my existential angst by a lot.
  • + 1
 What it makes me think about though is that budgets of space agencies around the world is terrifyingly low. Ridiculously lower than what is spent on preparing for eventual results of climate change. I don't give a flying fk how stupid it sounds, but it just tells about our ignorance: we SHOULD invest more in stuff like instruments for watch for hazardous celestial bodies coming close to earth orbit and stuff that can shoot it down, be it orbit/moon placed lasers, nukes, missiles, all sorts of sht. Not a bad use for already produced nukes. We cannot protect ourselves against solar flares that can demolish a deal of our electronic devices. Building a shield of size that could protect the Earth against flares is just impossible for humans to achieve. I actually have donated a few cents for Asteroid Watch Wink

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/flare-impacts.html
  • + 1
 Jeez are you guys still at this, 4 days later? Go ride your bikes! Smile
  • + 3
 @sourmix: I'm working, listening to interview with Brian Cox and Buzz Aldrin. Going to Hafjell on weekend. Maybe some road ride or pumptrack in the evening tomo. Salute
  • + 1
 @therealtylerdurden: don't worry , it was !
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: That's pretty much what i've been trying to tell you - I am well versed, actually.

I think what you are not getting from my point is the relative chance of these events happening. I'm not saying the chances of a meteor strike or solar flare are HIGH. I'm saying that they are a much greater risk than the weather as affected by climate change.

I agree with you on AI, and really human nature in general. I'm speaking only on natural phenomena in this discussion.
  • + 2
 @TheRaven: Well in that way you can say that sun swelling up or a chance of something fromAndromeda galaxy can hit us. It all depends on the time scale. In coming 200 years or more there is no major danger from a metheor or sun flare. Climate change on the other hand can cause a big exodus of people, areas that are dry, will just become drier, weather will become more severe, you can expect population of cities like Houston, New Orleans or Miami to move more inland, Europe can see a huge wave of immigrants from Middle East. do you think China will take people from Malaysia or Indonesia? Rising sea level, shortage of food, extreme weather it will all move people from one economy to another. Death of the Oceans AS WE KNOW THEM, is also an issue. We have no idea what it will be like. Maybe algae burgers and jelly fish salads will be good, nobody knows.

Anyways, AI is THE closest risk, or rather game changer. We are going into this like blind chickens into a blender and the funny bit is that, even in a lovely form, it may cut the human population of the planet by half by 2150. If you can upload yourself to a simulation where you can do pretty much whatever, why wouldn't you? I see myself, how an algorithm could replace my work as an architect. I have no delusions about it. Just think of logistsics, the drivers. Taxi drivers and couriers are fkn dooomed. They are doomed in 15 years or less. I drove Volvo V90 without self driving option, I had my hands of the steering wheel and off the pedals for 10 minutes. A new VW golf won't allow you to do that it will park itself by the side of the highway...

In face of AI, all those predictions about future of life on Earth are useless. It's like folks saying: in 4 billion years Sun will swallow the Earth. EEEErmmm... not if things go as they go now. In a Billion years, such fast developing civilization will be able to harvest the sun to the point where it becomes a red dwarf and burn for another hundreds of billions of years. They will also be able to change Earth's orbit to bring it closer to the sun. It's all possible by laws of physics if given enough time.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: And here's the problem:

"In coming 200 years or more there is no major danger from a metheor or sun flare. Climate change on the other hand can cause a big exodus of people, areas that are dry, will just become drier, weather will become more severe, you can expect population of cities like Houston, New Orleans or Miami to move more inland, Europe can see a huge wave of immigrants from Middle East."

You don't know any of this with any amount of certainty. No one does. Especially on the weather end...we can't even predict next week's weather with reliable accuracy...it's not surprising that we've been abysmal with long term pattern projections (sub 30% accuracy rate thus far).
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: what we can predict though is that as with all things in chemistry, if you increase the temperature the reactions will intensify. And we can observe that already. What we don't know is how exactly will that influence humanity on a global scale. We may also predict the movements of masses of people from less favorable regions to more favorable ones, lowering the western quality of life. You see - I am a psychopath to speak of such things in such cold manner Big Grin
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: Not in all cases, but I would agree that in the case of weather on planet earth, if you increase global temperature, also in effect increasing ocean temperature, this creates the likelihood for more powerful storm systems.

The problem is that this really tells us nothing as the only thing we can say with any certainty is that in the time we have been recording global temperatures, they have gone up 0.8 degrees. We can't say with any certainty that this will continue...it's actually been leveling off over the last ten years - the rate of increase is actually decreasing while our climate models say it should be increasing. Additionally we have not seen a conclusive increase in average weather system activity or intensity. Some seasons have more storms or more intense storms while other seasons actually have less. Once again, our models are telling us things should be getting worse across the board and they simply aren't in any discernable consistent way. None of this even addresses on what, if any, change is directly or indirectly human-caused.

It's scary what we don't know and that's a big driver behind the "global warming" alarmist movement. Everybody wants to believe that we have an answer, and more importantly, that we have control.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: the more I see things, the more I realize nobody, absolutely nobody, knows anything.
  • + 1
 @otto99: that's an extremely depressing end to this conversation... well, hopefully you'll get there Wink
@TheRaven: all I can say is that my sources of information disagree with your assessment, they are quite sure that humans contribute to Global Warming and can predict some effects of it. If a dude like Brian Cox says something I trust him. Just like I trust a dude who produces my rear shock, my internet connection, that fixes my broken bone. As much as I like the debatable stuff, it's been a lovely conversation, some people just know more.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: or you could say "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Ugh I'm about to get a second wind and comb through all of this with rebuttals...
  • + 1
 @otto99: I'm glad you used a poetic expression of Dunning Kruger effect Wink
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Socrates said it first. He was pretty wise I guess.
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: mandala effect caused timeline shift - were now living out the movie idiocracy in an elaborate simulation. After all, according to Elon Musk - because of Mohr's law we will be able to create a virtual reality indistinguishable from our current reality within a relatively short timeline. Begging the question, are we living in a simulation?
  • + 2
 @otto99: I'm not sure I like the simulation concept. It doesn't really buzz with me. What does though is the idea that I wake up in a Tron 2 kind of villa and a machine designed to be able communicate with me without scaring me, tells me that it's trillions of trillions of trillions of years after Earth became a rock of ice. He shows up and there it is, looking like a moon. We orbit a slightly red glowing iron star, one of last sources of light in the cold universe. We orbit one of the last black holes which slows down the tine for us even more. I am regenerated by the higher beings, grown if you like. I have access to a computer with 3d simulation, I can sit and watch/read about how universe went through it's life. Learn things about it, about laws of physics, about how we left Earth, populated the galaxies, maybe invented FTL travel, brought another star to Earth, moved Earth with that star away from the dying sun which we converted to a red dwarf anyways. I will now die with the dying universe as the time ceases to exist. I'd like to go like that...
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: You can certainly find plenty of sources to disagree with me, and I can find plenty of sources that agree with me. That's why this subject is such an actively debated one. If there truly was "overwhelming proof", the debate could never survive the way it has.

If there's one overriding truth that i've learned in my lifetime in the scientific field, it's that we humans are very good at giving the appearance of control. We have convinced ourselves that we are in control, that we have built an infallible fortress of knowledge on which we can sustain our civilization. But the truth is that fortress is actually a very nicely detailed paper facade held up by, to use a phrase coined by a very successful fellow engineer, "popsicles and scotch tape". The truth is that we still have so much to learn.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: you should introduce your wife to "white noise" app from Google app store. Big Grin
  • + 2
 Just remember kids, science is not something that is based on consensus.

At one point 99.999999999% of scientists said the world was flat.
  • + 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: you have to be fkng kidding me to mention that by this occasion...

@TheRaven - All I learned about in my lifetime as an a*shole is that truth and winning arguments are two different things. That's what lawyers do at the end of the day, they take rules of the game, that is the law, then they investigate the truth, then they set an objective and they nitpick facts or even distort them in order to reach the objective. Off course this "fact" supports your point of view just as well as mine. Truth... what a terrible weapon.

Then there is entertainment. We argue here for entertainment. Nobody will base policies on this discussion. Fortunately. Oh we forgot about two other potential killers of human civilization or at least economy: 1.viruses/diseases spreading fantastically thanks to our means of transportation, and 2. A fkng idiot having access to the red button.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns: There are reputable scientists that don't agree with the 'Consensus'.

So it's a valid point.
  • + 2
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Neither you nor I, nor anyone here has a fkng clue what we are talking about. We choose what we want to believe. And we are just talking like a bunch of strangers that met in an airport pub after our flight's been cancelled.
  • + 34
 Carbon Valves.....FFS. Please, just give the money to charity rather than waste money on crap like this. Ridic!
  • + 3
 To each their own. Weighweenies may not seem the most sane bunch in mtb species,some of them don't even ride their creations,but you can't deny their passion.
  • + 25
 Carbon Fiber Valve Stem-what a time to be alive.
  • + 2
 I've been feeling empty up until now. I finally know why.
  • + 21
 $199 @x-fusion-shox Manic FTW!
  • + 12
 I saw carbon valves and was just waiting to see all the PB hate comments about the price. Disappointed
  • + 9
 I am not disagreeing about drawing awareness to the carbon bike production issue, but there is a LOT worse out there that people tend to selectively ignore. That is not justifying the manufacturing process, in no way shape or form , its just being factual.

It seems that many of the "anti-carbon" bike crowd is jumping on the bandwagon to use the Pole article as a reason why they will never buy a carbon bike (when likely its $$$ which I would 100% agree with). Well if that is true, I guess using the same logic were all driving electric cars, not using lead acid batteries, growing your own food in your garden, not buying any overseas products if a local option is available, etc.. etc., due to the environmental impact.

I am not a huge fan of carbon bikes (own both), but one cant help wonder if the environmental issue is being used as an excuse rather than a voice for actual change (having the manufacturing process more stringent).
  • + 1
 yeah, that's how logic works
  • + 2
 As I just posted in that hopelessly long discussion, it's especially hilarious to me to watch guys arguing about environmental impact, online...using their smartphones and computers.
  • + 0
 @TheRaven: you find it hilarious because you're a moron
  • + 2
 @TheRaven: Just because you have a smartphone doesn't mean you can't buy bike parts that are easy to recycle. I own a car, but I try to bike commute when I can. I'll eat fast food, but try to buy local food and cook at home when I can. We all have impacts, that doesn't mean you can't try to reduce them a little bit here and there.
  • + 1
 @thedeathstar: Congrats for being that guy. Nothing like calling out a commenter because you don't understand what they said, effectively calling yourself out in the process. Now everyone here knows exactly who the moron is.
  • + 1
 @pacificnorthwet: That's not what i'm saying. What you described is what most of us aspire to do. Myself included. Nothing wrong with that. I was referring to the guys using their computers and smartphones to hate on guys who buy carbon bikes because they do a very small fraction of the environmental damage that the electronics industry does.

In short, if you own a smartphone or more than one computer, you have ZERO business complaining about people buying carbon bikes.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: It's really difficult nowadays to live without a computer, you can't demand that of anyone. But it's really easy to ride an alloy bike, so why not do that? If you're a normal human, you just try to do what you can while still living a life. Not advocating alloy here, just giving an example.
  • + 1
 @Slabrung: Again, as I clarified before, there is nothing wrong with a rider owning a computer and/or smartphone and choosing to buy only aluminum frames.

What makes said rider a gigantic douchey hypocrite is calling out other riders for choosing carbon.

Again, IF you support the electronics industry by upgrading your smartphone every two years when your contract renews, and/or continue to upgrade your computer/laptop every 2-3 years (like I can virtually guarantee the vast majority of us do), then you need to STFU about the choice of materials that other riders make .

If on the other hand, you still have a flip phone from 2005, and you still have the same desktop computer you got as a graduation present...then I think you can get away with some outspoken anti-carbon call-outs.
  • + 1
 @TheRaven: again agree with you Smile By the way calling anyone out or hating sucks by definition, the only result is that everyone involved feel bad Wink
  • + 1
 @Slabrung: Dude, it's difficult to live without my carbon bike. I'd give up my computer to keep my carbon bike. If someone would steal my damn computer from work than I could just ride my carbon bike all day and I would be truly happy.
  • + 7
 Until we ditch all forms of consumer goods and live off-grid solely on what nature intended to provide, we're all wrong, to include the sea dumping carbon companies. Just google search "plastic floating in ocean" and you'll see much worse consumer waste in our oceans. Disturb's song "Another Way to Die" is spot on.

I, by no means, am going to stop RIDING MY F#%*ING BIKES. I will however, try to do the best at reuse, recycling, minimize fuel consumption, etc. when I'm not doing so and dreaming about that next new bike Wink
  • + 7
 I love how we see new carbon fiber frames, wheels, cranks, handlebars, saddles, etc. almost daily on this site and nobody bats an eye, but as soon as we see some tiny little valve stems that are probably made out of scrap materials from those larger components, suddenly everybody is an environmentalist.
  • + 4
 In the short time human beings have been around we have done our best to f*ck up this wonderful planet.One way or another the human race will become extinct,weather it is because of our unstoppable greed, or a massive rock hitting us,so even if we stopped breeding and polluting tomorrow we will still run out of food /water /land or some twat will start dropping bombs! so until then folks we should all eat,drink and be merry;- and get off the internet and go ride your bikes ( E-bikes,29ers carbon,alloy ,bamboo ) or whatever !
  • + 1
 Definitely I could stand to get off internet more....thanks for reminder. Hitting trail shortly!!
  • + 2
 Solar flare or meteor will beat out anything else. No question.
  • + 1
 This man for president of the united world.
  • + 3
 Gents, we're talking about a ~5lbs of carbon fiber per bike. Soooo, put the tire iron shivs down. 1 gallon of gas weighs that and creates 20lbs worth of co2 when burnt which contributes to warming and ocean acidification. Sure crap in the ocean sucks but warming and acidification are major issues that will f**** things up bad.
  • - 3
 Global warmning is a myth
  • + 1
 The valve stem thing made me laugh, carbon fiber is obviously fashionable right now. But then for kicks I googled carbon fiber on alibaba.com..........there appears to be loads of carbon fiber production in all forms, sheets, knives, parts, brushes, even separate strands......China is probably just meeting demand with copious amounts of carbon fiber.....probably good time to start to nail down the truth about carbon fiber waste, production, reuse, disposal, etc.......whether good or bad.
  • + 1
 Having worked with composites in my other hobby (vintage boats), I will offer this:

Recycling of any FRP is not true recycling.

How dare I!

Let's say you vacuum heat leftover stuff to separate the fibers from the resin. The fibers that are left are of no practical use. They will have lost their initial strength in strand and will have to be reformatted to use again. For glass ,this may be possible. Carbon? Not so sure. The strands are grown. Can they be re-grown at that point? Or can the carbon be used in other things like steel? Don't know. So, partial materials reclamation with more processing needed.

And what happens to the resin? It is waste product. GARBAGE.
Maybe you can chunk and chop it and use it for plastic bags or toys? Regardless, it will never be able to do what it first did when it was catalyzed again.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with a company who is trying to make hardened resin recyclable:

"Epoxy is a thermosetting material (thermoset). Thermosets are formed from a chemical reaction when a resin and hardener, or resin and catalyst, are mixed and then undergo a non-reversible chemical reaction to form a hard, infusible product."

From www.materialstoday.com/composite-industry/features/can-epoxy-composites-be-made-100-recyclable/>;

Not very green, and certainly not sustainable in its current use. Note the non-reversible statement. No going back. These guys seem to have an idea on how to change that, but nothing has been brought to market yet.

Also, if there was a practical use for used plastics beyond the very narrow band of recyclable materials used in the consumer industry (grocery bags, packaging, etc.), then someone would be making money off of it.

The saying in boating is Fiberglass is Forever. Consider that the next time you buy some trick components. (Assuming you care about things like sustainability. (full disclosure, I am NOT an ecofreak and I really don't care what you by.))

Me? I use carbon bars, and a carbon seat post. I wouldn't consider a frame though as it is basically irreparable in the event of damage. AL frames can be fixed in some instances depending on the damage and are generally a little more resilient to incidental bumps and bangs.
  • + 1
 I thought wheels were built around standard weight valves? certainly when you spin a wheel without tyre/valve it feels slightly out of balance then when you assemble it spins balanced.... I reckon this negates the 10g weight saving.
  • + 1
 depends how it's made, welded rims are little extra material, but a pinned rim requires an extra plate inside i believe, that would be your extra weight. plus a rim without a valve still has a hole, so like 0.3g less material opposite the joint. More likely that the rim isn't perfectly true/concentric to the hub!
  • + 2
 @Henk-K: I remember in an article not too long ago here on PB that Blenki was using weights on the opposite side of this valve stem to counteract the hop. said it made the wheel a bit more quiet at high speeds.
  • + 5
 Once people are shoving foam inserts, sealant, glitter, etc in though, I'm not sure wheel balance is ever particularly good, not to mention lumps of dry sealant, tyre plugs, running a bit out of true... I don't know that you could really tell the imbalance when you're riding any sort of off-road trail
  • + 1
 @Smevan: Actually, every tire has a certain built in imbalance in it due to manufacturing tolerances. Install the heavy side opposite the valve hole and you have balance. The closer the heavy side gets to the valve itself the more "out of balance" the wheel feels. That is why on DH bikes some mechs will install a small wheel weight opposite the valve to counter this which actually can be felt at top speeds. All of this is very small effects on MTB's and much more prevalent the faster the vehicle(think moto and road)
  • + 1
 @chasejj: I understand the concept of wheel balancing Wink My point is that riders mess about with tyres, tubes, rim tape, sealant, valves, foam inserts, procore, the occasional tyre plugs/boot, out-of-true wheel, etc which is all guaranteed to affect wheel balance and yet it's not even close to common practice to balance bike wheels.

That's not surprising though, because it doesn't matter - ride down anything rougher than a tarmac road and the feedback from the trail will completely drown out any feel of a several-gramme wheel imbalance. I reckon I might be able to tell on my road bike, but even then, old/cheap bike computers with wheel magnets make no noticeable impact on wheel balance, so why would you expect to notice shaving 3 gramme off your valve stem?

I'd be willing to bet most professional teams don't bother either, considering they're usually preparing 6 wheels per rider, per race run, before you even consider practice and quali runs.
  • + 1
 @Smevan: I used to feel the same. In my moto racing days nobody did, but I bought a Harbor Freight wheel balancer on a whim and realized how much my wheels could vary in balance. So I got weights and balanced them. I noticed a definite smoothness afterwards. Recently I saw that Gwin had weights on his wheels as well. So I got some cheap stick on weights and am trying them. I may have reached the point of excess in this pursuit as I am not certain I can notice a diff at the speeds I ride.
  • + 1
 150 version of Manic cant be found anywhere, was bound to be released in July (according to PB first review linked above) and still cant find it on sale or a release date for that matter.
I'm looking for a 150mm budget dropper that is easily serviceable or at least readily available spares than wont cost a fortune, Atm im on the fence with Manic,TRS+ or the Highline 160m.Looks like the Highline cartridge isnt that cheap to replace and I'm tempted to go for the TRS+ just for the sake of simplicity and ease to service.My favorite would be the Manic thought if someone can confirm a release date and real cost of a new air cartridge that is supposed to be a cheap one and if they would be readily available for purchase.
  • + 3
 Brand-X Ascend XL dropper from CRC......150mm drop at a silly price. Newly released, just read the reviews from the shorter model.
  • + 1
 @chillescarpe: Didnt know about that one, tks for the heads up, looks great, well priced and at least there's a 2 year warranty, but cant seem to find any details on spring type, guessing a closed cartridge like Manic,Highline,and so may otheres atm, any idea where to get spares from? CRC only seems to have lever kits.
  • + 5
 We should start Carbon shaming out on the trails!
  • + 3
 Actually battery shaming would be more appropriate...but oh most already do that.
  • + 0
 You guys obsessed about carbon frame waste going into the ocean do know that's the same ocean where we already dump boats, old subway cars, and fukushima water right? Jesus christ what a bunch of marketing dummies, i knew i shouldnt have logged back in.
  • + 2
 I think we could all be a bit more conscientious in life about our carbon footprint, enough i'd say to offset the carbon frames and parts most of us will continue to use.
  • + 3
 I only buy things that cause pollution....why? Because "America"
  • + 1
 It's not like Al frames go into the recycling bin when they're done, and manufacturing alloys is super dirty as others have said.
  • + 2
 What's the big deal! I recycled my old Carbon Wilson front triangle. www.pinkbike.com/photo/14565214
  • + 1
 @jdlsalle: That's cool
  • + 0
 I've always wondered about wheel balance with valve stems, having a small rotational mass out of balance with the rest of the rim. Sure it's minor, but has anyone ever looked into this?
  • + 1
 Hey Rick, I saw on here recently that one of the WC DH mechanics adds weight to the opposite side of the wheel to compensate and the rider said it did seem to make a difference at high speed.
  • + 3
 @XCAussie: wheel builders have also been adding heavier spokes on the opposite side to compensate. A little neater than adding weights
  • + 3
 @dwojo: Thats a surprise! usually if you mix straight gauge and DB spokes you end up with problems.
Due to there varying elasticity.
  • + 3
 @dwojo: that is surprising with all the voodoo magic beliefs around wheel building. Remember tying spokes? lol what a joke
  • + 1
 @Rasterman: Tied spokes might have saved Greg Minnar at Cairns!
  • - 4
flag RedRedRe (Sep 21, 2017 at 4:57) (Below Threshold)
 Get a life
  • + 1
 I'm not sure that there is enough precision in wheel and tire manufacturing that there isn't a little random weight imbalance before the valve stem is added. Could be wrong of course...
  • + 1
 @XCAussie: Cheers for that! I'll tape a penny to the other side of my rims and see you in Croatia next April!
  • + 1
 Really? 126 comments and nothing about the helmet?

I want to know more about this thing. Purchaseable anytime soon?
  • + 1
 Carbon valves, really lol
  • - 2
 6D got it wrong... They should have just attached a 2L coke-bottle-top to the inner shell and spent the rest of the money in booze...
  • + 1
 CARBOOOOOOOON!

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.120436
Mobile Version of Website