Ask Pinkbike - Goggles for Half-Shell Helmets, More Fork Travel or a New Bike, and Pro Fitness Advice

 Come to Yorkshire, ride through the winter, stand on top of a hill in the driving rain (or snow, it does that too) and see what the difference between goggles and glasses is, you'll only need to do it once.

 Fix-the-Spade - It depends what glasses and what goggles. I live in South Western Sweden, we get all the shit that hasnt managed to fall on yer wee Isles. If it rains and temperature is around freezing, or worse - if it snows, the regular MX goggles are next to useless anyways, you need double lenses, at least for trails that do not offer high speed that could "defog" your single lens. Now anywhere above +5c, large glasses with vented lenses and tight fit around cheeks, are doing as good job as goggles (like Oakley Jawbone).

 Single lens goggles?!?! What do you take me for Waki?

 Er, no. Driving rain gets past any glasses, why? Because it hits your forehead and runs down into your eyes. For wet weather riding I wouldn't be without my goggles, I might look wierd but having clear vision I dont care. A decent anti fog coating does manage most conditions, and the difference is over here we dont regularly get temperatures way into the negatives.

 Dear Lord, it's winter.... Wear a full face helmet for goodness sake.

 Try wearing a full face lid on a 20k+ ride in the rain. A half shell with goggles is by far the best thing for long wet rides, and who really cares what you look like if your having fun? Id have far less fun without goggles

 Props to you bro,when it's raining I'm staying inside with the acoustic guitar

 Haha if we took that attitude in the UK we'd literally never ride.

 @preach na man. you don't stay inside when it's raining with your acoustic guitar. na. not when your bike wants to get dirty

 I saw a bike commuter wearing goggles and a road helmet. Looked freaking rediculous but I tried it out anyway to see what was up. In frigid wet weather, it does wonders.

 59F (15C) and partly cloudy make me think twice. Lucky that doesn't happen often in San Diego.

 "In frigid wet weather".... well there's your main problem.

 Absolutely right sino. And for every problem there's a solution...

 inked-up-metal head, I think you guys are a bit too sensitive about your British kinds of rain. Just drink your tea. If I was to ride in rain that could hit my forehead, I'd rather stay at home, read a book by Josif Stalin sipping IPA and stroking my spaniel.

 Our weather isn't that bad, we are all just like to complain. It's a British thing!!

 I like to keep my spaniel warm so I wear thermal undies out riding, also I take a tea infusing kit with me and a good oak pipe to smoke some premium tobacco in whilst having a good roast pork for luncheon. Yes waki obviously alllll English people drink tea and conform to the common stereotypes. Personally, I think winter is great for training: If you can stay rubber side down in 3 inches of mud, you'll develop better bike handling skills than simply "stroking your spaniel" as you put it so eloquently

 thomaspearson - If I ever had any preconceptions of Brits, it was that you guys were having a good sense of humor and irony. Monthy Python and Mr Bean made me believe so. Tea stereotype - I got it from Asterix - hah, the French fokin with ya aye? Now if you can develop some serious skills by keeping your rubber side down in 3 inches of mud as a national thing - who's making all those brake bumps in Alps? Just don't tell me it's Germans!

 Judge by my last trip to les gets I think I single handedly made all the brake bumps!!! Joking aside though they are noticeably worse on the blue and green graded trails.

 In the glasses vs goggle debate I prefer Utah. It keeps my eyes clean and free of mud 95% of the year. The other 5% I use the trails on the other side of the valley.

 I've given up on not looking like a dork and wear googles with my half lid most of the time. I have astigmatism that's on the edge of not being correctable with contacts; if my lenses spin even a couple degrees the world goes from being sharp to very blurry. This fall I did a 30 mile ride in Eastern Oregon with only glasses; had to take the descents a lot slower than I wanted to simply because I couldn't see (let alone all the dust I was flushing out of my eyes every hour or so).

Also, I'll put a plug in for POC Trabec and Iris Flow goggles; they share the same lines and thus fit very well together.

Function over form...

 oh cool that my question is here! after the thread posted the Ryders goggles, I'm going to give those a go wearing a full face is uncomfortable in most conditions that involve anything more than a quick descent. i'm not wearing a full face for 3-4 hours. you can have fun staying indoors with your acoustic guitar, though

 Only if you have to pull the starter cord 300 times before it gets running, and you wear a fanny pack.

 Until Steve Smith is old enough to take up Enduro, Enduro Chainsawing does not exist. Enduro Hedge Trimming I will accept, but only if you are sure to climb to the top of the hedge before trimming your way back down.

 That is effin genius man! Haha I wish I would've thought about that a while ago...

 Sweatin' to the Oldies 1 through 5

 Does he have a problem "Clipping In"?

 At first I thought you were referring to Wade Simmons.... Big difference

 I am also intrigued by this statement, as well as the one saying bigger wheels are better on steeps.

As far as I can tell larger wheels should offer no advantage on off camber sections, and be a hindrance on steeps as you can't get your weight as far back before that horrible "I'm siting on my tyre" moment.

 They have a bigger contact patch so more tire is touching the ground providing better grip.

 Black magic needs bigger wheels to stick the tire on the ground.

 @gabriel-mission9: Not true. Larger rim diameter = greater contact patch. Here's an image to illustrate: www.giant-bicycles.com/images/technology/2013/tech27-5_image4.jpg

 Bigger wheels easily pass over obstacles, doesn't take the small holes because they are... bigger. It was a big argument for the commercials when they started to sell 29er bikes : bigger wheels, less problems with roots (and others things like that).
(And also more speed, but less maniability, but depends on how and were you ride...)

If you have the oportunity, just try a 29er bike, it's REALLY different.


(And for the wheelsize flame, I only have a 26er dirt bike.. just had the occasion to ride a 29er Stumpy FSR like the guy in the article)

 Voxran, I totally agree that 29er wheels dont get bogged down by holes as much. But how specifically would they help with off camber sections and steeps?

 Sorry slums but gable is right. I've seen a documentary from the early days of formula 1 where they spent lots of time and (cigarette) money investigating the theory and it completely disagrees with Giants marketing department.

 @gabriel-mission9 I don't really know how to explain... (+ i don't speak english haha) Try to think about stairs : a small wheel will touch each flat of every stair. But with a bigger wheel, the wheel will just pass-by the stair and touch less harder the floor... Here is a beautiful example by me, I don't have enought words to explain : puu.sh/dxy9K/0d0dc06d4f.png

 With more wheels, you can see that the bigger wheel will touch less times the stairs than a smaller. And so, it will be smoother. Same for rocks on the ground, you will pass over easier : puu.sh/dxypO/dc1fed26f9.png

 @mammal

You said it yourself, "weight of air pressure vs the area it is pushing against"...
100psi means the air in the tyre is exerting a force of 100lbs per square inch of surface it is touching. Therefore it will require 1 square inch of contact patch to support 100lbs, 2 square inches to support 200lbs etc.

@Voxran

Your explanation is good and I agree with you. I just dont see how this applies to off cambers or steeps.

 Talk to some good 4x riders, they are quite particular about tyre pressures, there are few sports where contact patch matters so much - they'll tell you that gabriel is right. Just grab your bike and release some pressure and your contact patch will increase. If we talk off camber I'd point out following factors: tyre pattern, tyre pressure, tyre sidewall thickness + rim width (stability), suspension setup, eventually frame + fork stiffness. Wheel size is overrated.

RC has a strong opinion about larger wheels, whatever. Something tells me he also likes to piss off people on purpose with such things - he trolls in a way.

 Here is a very good explanation of wheel size and contact patch on the banshee website. I recommend reading all three parts for some of the best explanations of how the physicals of all three wheel sizes works. And at the end of the day @gabriel-mission9 is correct. Same pressure = same size patch, just a slightly different shape patch. But it also explains that optimal tire pressure based on tire drop would be lower for the 29er, meaning that you'd likely run less pressure in the bigger wheel, which would in practice mean a bigger contact patch.

bansheebikes.blogspot.com/2013/11/wheel-size-facts-part-3-contact-patch.html

 @mammal

150lbs at 20psi in each tyre = 7.5 square inches of contact patch spread over two tyres

3.75 per tyre

about 1.5" wide and 2.5" long per tyre

Sounds about right to me. How about you?

 Pounds per square inch. It's what hoaddlds you up. For the off camber debate. From my experience on a 2 minute track that is completely offcamber roots from top to bottom, i will say that it's very close between wheel sizes. Tires make x10 more difference in that situation.

 @sino428
Cheers for the link. Very interesting. I've read Pt 1. Pt 2 should make for good lunchbreak reading tomorrow if I can find enough odd jobs to keep the minions off my back for 5 minutes

 Thanks guys, also for keeping it relatively quiet despite the hot topic. So, what about the assumption everyone makes about bigger contact patch = more friction, is it necessarily true? Isn't friction contact surface independent?

 Think harder pm148! The larger wheel also rotates less degrees to propel the bike the same distance.

 If you dipshits are so worried about roots, passing over holes, smoothing out your rides, and how far you go per rotation, they have these things called road bikes that you can ride with the rest of the Lycra wearing geek squad.

 Engineer here! @gabriel-mission9 is absolutly right with everything he said.
Force = Pressure x area

If pressure and force stay The same, so must area.

 justgetanormalusername - friction is independent of surface when it comes to hard, perfect or near perfect surfaces (water, ice). On loose, bumpy surface tyre knobs and contact patch play a big role.

 WAKI, that's what I always hear, but I'm interested in the physics involved and cannot find a good explanation. For what I know there is no such thing as perfect surfaces. Let's say you have a good tyre with knobs and all, and some loose soil. The combination of those two things will influence the coefficient of friction. But once this combination is defined you have a fixed or almost fixed coefficient. Then when you increase contact patch the adhesion forces increase but weight is spread over a bigger area so the two effects cancel out. That's the reason friction only depends on normal force. So how does grip increase with bigger contact patch?

 I don't know about physics man, it's because surfaces start to conform to each other. There will surely be a relation between size of bumps and size of contact patch. Maybe it's mostly about that conforming so that the more the surface, the more hooks. Hans Dampf is deadly on gravel, while similar low-knobbed tyre in 2" grips better, even if ride is bumpier. All I know is that fundamental physics theories don't take into account things like a berm forming in gravel when you lock the wheel. F1 cars use freaking wide tires, for death grip.

 I thought F1 cars needed those for heat dissipation.

 Guess friction looses linearity when deformable surfaces come in action.

 Rolling resistance is not only frictions, there is an amount of energy required to distort the tire, and to create the tire footprint. The bigger the contact patch, the more energy you need.

 Yes and more the tyre deflects over the obstacle, without bottoming, the more roll over you get thus less energy is lost and more traction you get as tyre stands more on the ground rather than biunces off. Even roadies know that, hence 19mm tyres are for people who can't apply book on physics to reality. More and more evidence proves that 23mm tyres on rims as wide internally as 17mm are optimal for most races, and on rougher asphalt like Giro stages one could benefit from 25mm fat tyres. In pstchology it is called that something is counter intuitive.

 "Tread pattern and rubber compounds make a bigger difference than contact patch area.
The tread pattern changes the contact area far more than wheel size will!"

What are we comparing here is similar to compare wich of the puzzle fractions is better.

As for me the better to wee the whole picture.

 Pardon, correction made
"What are we comparing here is similar to compare wHich of the puzzle fractions is better.
As for me the better is to See the whole picture."

 When I switched from an old 2004-era Cannondale Jekyll 26" (the one with the adjustable shock mount) to a 2013 Stumpjumper FSR 29" I expected the increased inertia / momentum, and smoother "rollover", and the tendency to keep a line (both good and bad), but what I had not been marketed to anticipate was the noticeable increase in grip when cornering.

Many variables here - geometry, weight, suspension performance. However, my Jekyll weighed about 29lbs, the same as the Stumpy, had 130mm of suspension, as does my Stumpy, and a similar head angle (69 degrees). The suspension on my Jekyll was more plush/forgiving/less stiction than my Stumpy (everyone should try a Lefty) and I had Minion DHF's front and rear on my Jekyll compared to Purgatory/Ground Control on the Stumpy.

Anecdotally, my experience is that a 29er provides greater cornering grip than a 26er, even if the 26er has more forgiving suspension and better/more aggressive tires.

To me riding off camber would engage the same area of a tire that cornering leaned over would engage, so IMO I don't think that Richard is too off-base claiming that big wheels are a plus in this kind of riding. 26 or 29, I still hate riding off-camber, but any advantage is welcome. For roots and such, a 29er wheel deflects less and so grip is sustained better compared to a 26" wheel.

I love all kinds of bikes. I would still be riding my Jekyll if the frame hadn't cracked and when deciding on a new bike chose a 29er mainly to minimize obsolescence.

Or, perhaps I have inadvertently drunk the marketing cool-aid.

 Wheelbase? I imagine it is a lot longer on the stumpy.
I also find it hard to believe that your 2004 suspension is better than your 2013 suspension.
I would say a new set of purgatory/ground controls wouldn't be dissimilar to a used set of minions. Dunno how used your Minions were tho so that one is hard to judge.

 I do think for camber considerations the bb height compared to the axel is significant.

 Good point about the wheelbase. Significantly longer on the Stumpy, if this increases cornering grip. Would increase mid-corner stability, so perhaps that is what I experienced rather than increased grip.

Minions were almost new, less than a season of use. Super tacky front, 60a rear. They seem to be the gold standard still, but Specialized tires have a good reputation as well.

2013 Fox CTD Evolution fork and shock...need I say more? Hard to believe but the 8-year-old Manitou swinger and Lefty Max on the Jekyll had much less stiction, were more controlled through their stroke, and more plush over stutter bumps. A significant downgrade in suspension performance overall.

 In my experience of riding on a track requiring little to no braking in some corners a 29er does not offer more grip. What it offers is more feedback thanks to increased leverage and dropped BB which give you more confidence and more predictable drifting. It's an effect similar to switching from narrow to wide bars - it seems like your sense of what happens with the front wheel got sharpened. So you feel more in control thus you dare more. I own a super bike in form of Blur TRc with carbon wheels but what I found Stumpy 29 evo does better is that it has a bit of a mind of it's own, riding it is more intuitive, bike kind of talks more.

 Just to add my .2: Waki is dead on WRT rolling resistance. The biggest factor, over offroad surfaces, is how much deflection is transmitted up to the rider, vs absorbed by all the moving parts below them(including arms & legs.) you can feel this when you keep the bike light through a bumpy section, & exit with more speed than you would if you had stayed passive on the bike: when you get light, you absorb more energy before it counteracts the momentum of the heaviest portion of the rider bicycle system: the rider's torso.

 Racer X? Any connection with Mr. Paul Gilbert?

 get a new rear shock too, or get the fox reshimmed so the front and rear suspension play nice

 My shock has a PUSH Big Hit Tune, so the shock should be ok, but I have thought of a Monarch Debonair. Have to get more time on the bike first.

 My buddy ran it for two seasons, but he just sold it for an Enduro.

 Yes. I put the 150mm pike 29er on and also got the dual position for dropping it on climbs. I'm in heaven

 I rode a 150 Pike on Stumpy Evo29 - awesome!

 It can be the helmet pushing down your goggles. Or the strip of the goggles too high on the helmet. take some selfies to look how the goggles looks on your helmet!

 your face is too small.

 So there should be little notches that adjust how far down the back of your head the retention system sits. If you put it in the highest position that might rock your helmet back just the right amount.

 elevation training mask + goggles + half shell helmet + college gym = win

 The elevation masks in the gym make no sense. The point is to train low and sleep high so unless your college gym is letting you take it home at night it's pretty much worthless and will only serve to give you a shittier workout.

 I use the mask when i spin and ride xc. Not in the gym

 Just get a mountain.

 No offense here, but you should still throw the thing in the trash. You wasted your money on that thing. They are useless and likely doing you more harm than good.

To better understand you need to understand the theory of how altitude training works in the first place. The benefits stem from the body getting used to operating on less oxygen, which cause more EPO production, which produces more oxygen carrying red blood cells to form. Then when you compete at lower attitude the blood is primed with all the extra red blood cells.

In theory it makes sense. But wearing an air restricting mask on the other hand doesn't. First and foremost, even if the mask did properly replicate a high altitude environment (which it doesn't), you need to spend long lengths time at altitude. Basically you need to live there, for weeks at a time to see any benefit. Wearing it for an hour or two while you spin or go for an XC ride does nothing except make it hard to breathe.

Second, as I mentioned, the mask does not replicate a high altitude environment. Even if you did wear it all day and sleep in it you'd still see no effect. It simply makes it hard for you to take in air, but its the same air. Air has an oxygen content of around 21% at sea level. No matter what kind of mask you put on you are still breathing 21% oxygen air, you just can't breath it as deeply easily. This will not cause your body to adapt to anything. You need to be breathing actual reduced oxygen air (16% at 7K feet for example) for the body to react to it.

The only thing the mask will do is maybe strengthen your lungs a little due to the body physically working harder to expand the lungs. But those benefits are outweighed by the losses you experience by wearing the mask because it hinders your ability to train as efficiently as you would without it.

 Thats what I'm going for, to strengthen my lungs and force myself to breathe. I understand that its not oxygen at a higher elevation and that its restricting my oxygen intake, which is what i want, to force my body to operate with less intake and focus on my breathing. A big problem i have in a dh race is i don't breathe. With the mask training me and forcing me to breathe then i won't have to remember to breathe in a race, it'll be natural. Besides the elevation mask wasn't even the main concern of my question, just another training tool, or useless piece of equipment to you guys.

 Dunno about anyone else, but I've been breathing without having to remember to for over 2 decades. I didn't need a mask to learn to do it either!

 But why would you want to your body to operate on less intake? Like I said there is no benefit to that at all. All its going to do is decrease the efficiency and intensity of your workout. Your putting in all that work and not getting the most out of it. I mean think about anything you've ever heard about working out. It's always about how breathing is important. We when have you ever seen anyone suggest working out while holding you breath? Thats essentially what you are doing.

I'm not just trying to be argumentative here. Your original question was about getting the most out of training, and wearing that mask is likely hindering that more than helping. I totally understand your point about forgetting to breath during race. But your probably better off working that issue out some other way than wearing a mask that restricts your breathing while you are working out.

 Just when I think xc riders couldn't get any gheyer, i find out they're wearing elevations masks while training

 It forces you to produce more red blood cells, its like a legitimate form of blood doping

 @gabriel-mission9 - Well that is the theory behind actual elevation training (living at altitude and breathing reduced oxygen air), which science would support to an extent. But the mask is a gimmick that does not replicate a high altitude environment and does not cause those reactions from the body. The more important point is that its not simply a question of the mask being effective or not. Wearing it will actually have a negative effect on your training. When training, the body will operate at maximum efficiency and intensity (which is the goal when looking to improve strength and endurance) when it getting a full complement of oxygen. Even when athletes practice legitimate altitude training, the most widely practiced technique is "live high-train low", where athletes live at a high elevation and travel to a lower elevation each day to train. This is so they can get the full benefit of training, while their body adjusts to the altitude during the rest of the time creating the physiological benefits of increased red blood cell production.

So even if the mask did replicate high altitude, just wearing it for a workout is the complete opposite of how one would apply altitude training in the first place.

 Okay for what it's worth, in order for that mask to really have any effect you'd likely need to wear it full time or for a majority of the day. If you just wear it for an hour of so each day I'd imagine your body just says "wtf I'm getting less air" and starts pumping blood a little harder until you take it off. But all that does is give you the same results as a run in my mind. The human body is geared towards efficiency and I would imagine it wouldn't give up the energy necessary to support extra alveoli when it only needs them for an hour each day. If you're looking to throw some extra cardio in then maybe thats a good option but I'd wager that it's better to just run five minutes and not water board yourself. That said, for what it's worth, my take on it is this, if it works for you, do it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. Everyone's different (snow flake syndrome) and has to find a way to get in shape that works for them if this helps you then go for it and piss on the internet.

 But the thing is that the mask doesn't work. The science not only doesn't support it, the science says it will ultimately do more harm than good by reducing the effectiveness of the workout/effort. It doesn't matter how different everyone is in terms of workout preferences. If you are a human being, your body will not respond positively to wearing a mask that restricts your breathing while you work out. There is no way around that.

And I don't come to the comments section to piss on things unsolicited. This guy @smitty2661 wrote in specifically looking for workout advice. And although the PB response glossed over it, I saw his mention of an elevation mask as a red flag and simply offered some friendly advice to get rid of the thing. At the end of the day I don't care how he trains. He can do what he wants. But when I see people making a mistake I'm going to point it out because I would appreciate someone doing the same for me.

 Kettlebell or ultimate? would like to try one but not sure which.

 Couldn't agree more, BikeJames.com hosts a lot of FREE ressource and pro advices to start with. The trainings programs are suited to various types of riders and they are ridiculously cheap. James Wilson is the man you want to go to if you want to have a MTB specific training. He nailed it from A to Z.

 I can't be the only one who thinks his website reads like an infomercial

 here's my review of the ultimate
waki-leaks.blogspot.se/2014/05/test-ultimate-mtb-workout.html

 Thanks for the link Waki, very interesting.

 James Wilson's has great bike specific workouts. For a broader functional strength training program, can't go past Pavel Tsatsouline's Simple & Sinister. Awesome stuff: www.strongfirst.com

 Any similar goggles that does not fog over? My POC goggles fog over in like 5 seconds.