Randoms: Outdoor Demo Day 1 - Interbike 2015

 I have the solution! For less than $150, with no lifetime warranty, I will do a crappy job bleeding your brakes and it will work the same as the Overbrake.

 For even less than $150 I'll provide you with a smaller rotor!

 Sram brakes too powerful?!?!?! LMFAO

 Just run sram up front and saints in the back

 If Outbraker wanted to sell some product they could figure out a way to regulate Sram brakes to maintain consistency. My 1 year old Guide brakes have been bled 4 times this season and I'm not alone with this issue. I have to constantly (under the direction of my shop) pump them with no pad in so the lever doesn't go all the way to the bar. Seriously Sram, get your sh&t together. Brakes shouldn't have to be serviced after 5 rides.

 I'm a Shimano brake guy, but the new Guides are equal in power with Shimanos XT and XTR. The Guide do offer better modulation, but the initial bite isn't as good as Shimano.

 That's wild. I musta got lucky cause I've had my guides for over a year and after a full season of DH racing nw cups and riding weekly sometimes 2-3 times a week I've never had to bleed them once front or rear. I wonder if your shop just sucks at it?

 A drop of oil on the rotor should take care of that overly useful brake, if that doesn't work, try 2-3 drops.

 Formula has had the same system for atleast 3 to 4 years now

 @maxyedor or some WD-40, that takes care of the grabby brake and the squeal.

 I would agree I've had no issues with my Guides.

 A better option is to dremel a couple of grooves in your pads. Peaty used to do it I believe.

 seriously ryan83 I would worry about your shop. no offence but the new guides are the most basic of basic hydraulic systems out there and OMG they are the same exact hydraulic system as shimano. So yea I don't believe its the hardware in this case. If your bay area local hit me up and ill help you out. Should only need a bleed once a year as every other hydraulic system recommends.

 Or just do what Aaron Gwin does and just don't use your brakes. At all.

 Gwin has been using it since his Trek days.

 for a mere $99.95, i will replace your front brake with a Donald Duck bicycle bell

 Only hydro systems running DOT (Poly-glycol) type fluid truly need to be bled/flushed regularly; DOT fluid is insanely hygroscopic-it'll literally draw water molecules through the pores of a system's seals. That acumulated water in turn resorts to air/vapor lock. AVID/SRAM actually recommends a semi-annual bleed/flush. In extremely humid conditions, this is not outlandish. DOT fluid brakes for bikes are B.S.; the systems don't get consistently hot enough, like the automobile types they copy, to boil off the accumulated water load.
"sips tea and closes laptop"

 My experience is shared with others that I've ridden with who take their bikes to different shops. Maybe I'm just looking for the negative but I'm relieved to hear the positive feedback on these as I love them when they are dialed. I'm going to have a heart-to-heart with the shop. I may also look into actually bleeding them myself.

I'm also curious if altitude has an effect? I ride at elevations ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 feet and have had a few rides higher than this.

 OutBraker: lifetime warranty for something you dont need.

 @ryaan83, I'll even help you bleed your brake. All you gotta do is just buy the DOT 5.1. Elevation shouldn't matter if your brakes have been properly bleed.

 I just happen to have a set of Avid's I dug out of the trash that can be yours!

 I had my guides for 6 rides, required two bleeds. took them off and put on my old xt's. Anyone want to buy a almost new set of guide RSC

 @jhou feel the new XT M8000 line, you'll retract that statement....

 @nilswalk: well said, and if that's still too much, maybe it's because you actually don't really need brakes at all, and could just resort to the good old foot-to-rear-wheel braking system lol just make sure your soles aren't super soft...

and lol at the 150$; mine costed close to half of that for the pair...

 Yeah there is very little in common in the "hydraulic system" between Shimano and SRAM Guide brakes. They are actually very different.

I also have heard alot of complaints about the new SRAM brakes, but my experience has been good thus far. I stick to Shimano brakes simply because they have a long-established excellent reputation, don't use DOT fluid, and still manage to be cheaper. However, if I were gifted a set of Guides, I wouldn't hesitate to ride badass trails with them. They are worlds better than the Avids of old.

 Actually the hydraulic system is very similar if not identical in function. Only difference is the fluid type DOT vs Mineral oil. As far as function it is the same traditional master cylinder with compensating port as 99.9% of all hydraulic braking systems out there. Where they differ is outside the hydraulic system wingers the linkage system is used on the SRAM to push the master cylinder piston. This has no effect on achieving a proper bleed though. But taper bore is gone and both SRAM and Shimano use conventional master cylinders.

Yes DOT fluid is hydoscopic but all systems should be flushed for different reasons. DOT fluid is hydroscopic so it will mix with water and still function with water in it. This works well for a brake system because as it goes through heat cycles any condensation will just mix into the glycal based DOT fluid and still function but does lower the boiling point. On a mineral or silicon based system it needs to be flushed because they will not mix with water and any water in the system over time will build pockets of water in the fluid. So neither is perfect both have there ups and downs but properly maintained they should both work just fine.

 @Jesse221 - OK I guess I have to get a bit more specific. Essentially what you said above is "of course they are the same, they are both hydraulic brake systems". Yeah, that's true. If you look at it that way, then all hydraulic brake systems, whether MTB, Road Bike, Motorcycle, or automobile, are just as similar. Speaking relatively however, within the realm of hydraulic brake systems, the simple fact that one uses DOT fluid and the other uses Mineral Oil makes them operationally, and behaviorally, very different. That's what I was getting at. Consider the former nightmare that was Avid hydraulics. They are similiar to Shimano brakes in the same ways that you outlined above, yet NO ONE would say they work as well as Shimano's brakes. What has been changed in the new SRAM brake systems when compared to the old Avid brake systems? By the definitions you cited above, pretty much nothing. But I assure you, alot has changed, and it's evident in the new brakes excellent performance.

 Actually the old avid brakes were NOT a conventional system they used their own design called taper bore and was more prone to air getting trapped and harder for any air trapped in the system to float to the top of the reservoir and out of the cylindrical portion of the master cylinder. So no old avids and new avids hydraulic system are not the same at all and that is why the guides do not have the issues of the old avid.

 @Jesse221 - yeah, that's what I said. See the quote from my last comment:

"What has been changed in the new SRAM brake systems when compared to the old Avid brake systems? By the definitions you cited above, pretty much nothing. But I assure you, alot has changed, and it's evident in the new brakes excellent performance."

As you just correctly pointed out, the old Avids were very different than the new SRAM setups, despite still being good 'ole hydraulic brake systems. This is what I was saying all along.

 But the old ones weren't a good ole hydraulic system is what I am pointing out. The old one was a very unique system. Take a set of new guides, Shimano, Magura, hope and put them on the table and dissassemble them and aside from fluids and piston diameters they are the same basic master cylinder principle, now take a taper bore lever and put it next to them and they are not even close:

The issues with the old SRAM were not the fluid it was the design. It was harder to work with getting all the air out so more people had more issues which earned SRAM a bad rep. The new guides are back to a conventional system so the above comments of bad avid brakes doesn't really hold true and is more likely set up error.

 Yes, the old Avids were hydraulic brakes, as are the new SRAM, and Shimano from the beginning. Fluid and cylinder design do not change that fact. You are simply going in to more detail and supporting my original point.

What it comes down to is this - you originally said that the new SRAM brakes are exactly the same as Shimano brakes because they are hydraulic brakes. You then went on to point out that despite also being hydraulic brakes, the old Avids were not the same. You made a contradictory statement, that's all. All three are hydraulic brakes, and all three are different despite that fact. Period. You can get into subjectivity by saying "yeah well the old Avids were MORE different" but that opens things up to debate, and for no good reason. The original idea posited was that the new SRAM brakes will be just as good as Shimano brakes because they are also hydraulic brakes. This is simply not true.

Also I didn't say that the Avids were "bad". I said they were a "nightmare". That does not preclude human error. It simply accounts for the fact that a product more prone to cause human error can be just as bad or worse than a poorly designed product, and some would say, still qualifies as a poorly designed product.

 I guess we will agree to disagree. It feels as if you want to make the fluid the major difference between why the avids past and present are very different from Shimano. In my original post I was trying to point out that the new SRAM brakes are identical in hydraulic system operation may be more clear, as it seemed the poster was still using the old avid reputation for his issues. The you go and say the avids were always a good ole hydraulic system.

Well let's use an alternative as an example. If a car maker used a rotary engine with synthetic oil and another maker a traditional piston and crank engine with non synthetic oil. Let's say the rotary always had low torque and no starts after short trips (fuel fouls plugs) complaints so that maker earned a rep for not having any torque and poor reliability (yes I know a piston engine can have low torque too it's just not as usual). So they switch to a conventional system and then someone starts making a claim that really isn't heard from anyone else that the car keeps having no starts on short trips and no torque.

My feeling is something doesn't add up and I would question who is doing the work, and it feels like you are saying it's the fluid because after all they were both always good ole engines right?

 Yeah but your example isn't really accurate for two reasons:

1 - because it posits that changing the type of engine in a vehicle with issues guarantees that the issues are fixed. What if the starting issue is due to ignition coils getting too hot and the no torque is due to the transmission (clutch or TC)? Same issues could still exist with the new engine.
2 - because it states that the claim "isn't heard from anyone else". ryan83 is far from the only person to have bleeding issues with the new SRAM brakes.

On the different systems similarities/differences - hydraulic systems are exceedingly simple. When you consider only the parts that touch the fluid (I.E. the "hydraulic system") there are only a handful of parts that can actually BE different. Thus, you change ONE part, you have significantly changed the system, and have introduced the potential for significant issues. So yes, the fact that the systems use different fluid types is VERY significant. I mean look at mechanical brakes - if you changed the metal cable to nylon, would you be surprised to find that the system behaved VERY differently? You shouldn't, because it definitely would. Different fluids means different dynamics, and different seals. That's more than 50% of the aspects of a hydraulic system.

Furthermore, you haven't even considered the role that manufacturing plays. What if SRAM just blantantly copied Shimano's design...would you expect it to be exactly the same? You shouldn't, because it would be made in a different factory, with different tolerances and QC. You could end up with a completely different reputation despite it being the EXACT SAME product.

 I guess in my example you would have to have some knowledge in the systems. A rotary engine is inherently lower torque and a higher rpm engine than a traditional engine it is a design trait, as for the no start that is from fuel fouling the plugs on short trips (rx8 notorious) because the fuel doesn't burn completely with the engine cold it drains down and washes the sealing rings out so and the next start you have fouled plugs and no compression so you need to clean the plugs and squirt oil into each chamber of the rotary and then put it back together and start it and get it back to operating temp before shutting it down. These are traits of a rotary engine by its design, just as the older taperbore were known to be hard to bleed and prone to air getting trapped in the system. Once you know these traits of you switch to a conventional system you will no longer be having these issues.

Ask yourself this if the fluid is truly the issue as you suggest. Where are all the pages and pages of hope, and formula complaints? Or since dot is more widely used than mineral oil lets expand it, where is the pages of Kawasaki, Honda, Yamaha? In fact I see few complaints on the guide and most reviews are now claiming then their favorite brake and has replaced their shimanos.

Where avid opens themselves up to issues though is that there are multiple brands of dot fluid and not all are equal, yes they have to pace a certain spec but just like all oils they are not all top quality. Shimano has a better quality control by only allowing their fluid. So yes there are more variables for issues in the SRAM system but to come in bashing the guides based on old outdated info of their taperbore days is not correct.

 A couple things:

First, I didn't say fluid was the issue. I said that a brake system that uses a different fluid IS a different system, and that simply changing the type of fluid that a brake system is designed for means that it's a very different brake system and can have different/more issues.

Second, I have also heard great reviews of the new SRAM brakes. I have not, however, seen many cases of them being preferred over Shimano. Despite being a good reliable option, they are still more expensive than Shimano and due to only being around for a few years do not have the lifelong rock solid rep that Shimano brakes have. I doubt anyone outside of SRAM fanboys are going to replace a perfectly good set of XTs with Guides.

Third, just as there always has been a wide selection of different grades and brands of DOT fluid, there is also a wide selection of different brands of Mineral Oil. I do not have "Shimano" brand oil in my XTRs, as my LBS does not stock it. Also, as i'm sure you are aware, Mineral Oil was not invented for Shimano brakes. It has existed for over a century and is used in thousands of other applications.

Finally, I didn't see anything in ryan83's comments comparing new SRAM brakes to the old Avids. I just went over them again to make sure I didn't miss something, but there's no comparison of his Guides to any other brakes. Just a venting of his frustrations of brakes needing to be continually re-bled.

 You know what your right. I took his comment when saying SRAM needs to get its sh@t together implying as they have always had brakes which is why I was making the statement that they have and the new guides are near identical in hydraulics as the Shimano (much more so than their old taperbore) and that you really should not be having so many bleed issues which is why I question the shop and my opinion still stands there as does my offer to help if he lives in the Bay Area.

As for your earlier comment of the cable and string compared to dot vs mineral oil those are two very different materials being pulled on with different tensile strengths vs two non compressible fluids being pushed.

I am aware there are different mineral oil however what you put yourself as th majority using a different fluid than stock spec or the minority? I am sure it is much more likely there are multiple users of dot brakes running different than oe spec vs Shimano users because all avid calls for is a dot spec and not a specific brand with specific properties. There is a review out of mixing different mineral oils in different systems and how they effect it and for the most part it is mostly lever motion (due to viscosity) but once the lever engages all the fluids are firm because they are non compressible.

As for guide reciews the best ones are when they actually review bikes speced with them but I can't dig one up imediatly but they will mention the brake and say a new favorite or similar to that. Here are some reviews one does say they like it more the others mention same if not more power with more modulation. One thing to not is look how every single one of them say the lever feel is near identical to Shimano.

m.bikemag.com/events/first-impressions-sram-guide-brake

www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/first-ride-sram-guide-brakes

www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/first-ride-sram-guide-brakes

That's just a quick search but also one had a longer term test to verify the old reliability issue of taperbore are indeed gone.

So once again my position stands I question the shop. What fluid did they use? Was it fresh from a sealed container or has it sat in the back of their shop for every after being opened once to bleed a customers brakes a year ago etc (dot fluid is not supposed to be used after sitting once it has been exposed to atmosphere). But yes you are right I may have misread his original comment unless he was referring to SRAM brakes in general in which case the guides do not apply to that.

 Boy my first paragraph below came out wrong. Trying to write on iPhone is impossible. What I meant was I took his comment to imply SRAM has always had bad brakes, and that is why I was saying the new guides do not fall into that category and they are much more similar in design to Shimano than they are to their own old model.

 The main point of my frustration stems from the fact that I have had many iterations of Shimano XT Hydraulic Brakes for the last 10+ years that have been very consistent and reliable products. Sure the early generations lacked a little modulation but they are user friendly and rock-solid.

Enter last year. I bought an Enduro that came with Guides. The last few months have been filled with unnecessary trips to the shop dealing with something I've never dealt with. This is on the heals of listening to my brother bitch and moan about his X0 trails to the point where he gave up and replaced them. So please, SRAM, one of the most prevalent component companies, with what I assume is the probably the biggest R+D budget in our industry, get your sh%t together.

 And there it is. Previous experience with the xo (taperbore) as I thought. So I am sorry to hear your issue with the guide but as I said SRAM did get their sh@t together, they completely reversed their design and now use a conventional system. Also there are many more good and great moments about the guide than any negative so one has to wonder when there is a outlier one has to wonder what is going on? Poor installation, improper setup, wrong setup for that rider (like possible you weigh too much or ride the brake a lot requiring a different rotor size or pad compound). There there are a lot of variable and I'm sorry your having issues but you should not be bleeding the brakes every 5 rides that's insane and this new design does not have the "air trap" issues of the taperbore.

I take it your not Bay Area local? I personally own a set of codes with taperbore and guide rsc and have no issues with either (except for when I cooked my rear codes cause the pads were damn near at the metal but that's my fault) but I can say it is definitely more difficult to get a good bleed on the taperbore.

 *must be a Legend.

 He's a rock gardener I reckon.

 yea man! If anything they should be trying to undercut the competition on price/markup/etc. They are not the target everyone is trying to hit. Even if there bike is just as good OR better. Nobody knows that that I've ever spoke to...?

 -Because entry and mid level bikes aren't as sexy in the press. -Like most other bike companies they have a full line up. -Bike snobs like different names and looks just for the sake of being different.

 If it's anything like Marin bikes in NZ, within 3 months it'll be half price. At which point it's probably aa really good deal.

 actually with the exchange rate and gst etc that will be over $16,000 in NZ so even at half price it will way to much.

 At least you'll get a proper headset badge! Props to marin for that.

 $10,000 bikes make $5000 bikes look reasonable. Behavioral economics 101.

 @stifford a $10,000 bike "on sale" for $7,500 is also very enticing. My shop lives by this mantra. You won't hear me complaining.

 Not just you. It's funny that there's another comment here saying it looks sexy. I have an '09 Attack Trail that I really like, and tons of people hate the Marin bikes from that era. They're definitely polarizing. Like the Subaru of the mountain bike world.

 Looks like a Turner

 I like it,I'm thinking of getting one tbh

 Sunglasses do the job, I'm sure it won't be a problem

 I must be doing it wrong? Sunglasses + riding on dirt = dirt in my eyes.

 @UncleCliffy - I've been using the Squads for the last month, and can say that they definitely keep more dirt out than sunglasses, but do let a little bit more in than 'regular' goggles. For riders who have trouble with fogging the tradeoff will probably be worth it, but for maximum protection from getting particles in your eyes, you'll probably want foam in place. A full review will be up in the next month or so.

 ...does the src in @src248 stand for sarcasm?

 Pretty much what I thought. Thanks @mikekazimer!

 @mikekazimer that wasn't the full review? Ffs they're goggles

 Has anyone used them in damp/muddy conditions?

It could well solve a problem for us Brits

 I've started drilling some small holes at the very top and bottom of the goggle lense, this seems to really kelp with the fogging up and have zero issues with dirt getting in. I live in Scotland by the way so I know all about dirt and mud.

 I have problems with fogging so I was hoping for the Squads to solve the issue. Now that I realize that dirt might come in I will try to solve the issue by removing the foam on the upper side of my goggles first. I wear POC's Iris.

 Dust is the problem where I ride, I'll stick with the foam. The increased lens surface area is enviable though.

 Who needs a pump? I can just use this handy six-pack of CO2 cartridges!

 You know, I wasn't a fan of the black stanchions earlier, but now that I've seen them on both the fork and the shock, I'm satisfied. Cool and clean.

 "The hardest working man at the Outdoor Demo? Quite possibly - it seemed that everywhere I turned, he was diligently raking away at the rocky ground, although I never really figured out why."

Cos that's my job, and i take pride in it. People could learn something from him.

 Possibly the only one to say...

 If you meant color scheme, then perhaps, yes it looks good. But in any other color especially a light color that frame is going to look a bit odd.

 I second ithomas' statement. But I might be a little biased...

 I don't get it, it's a beautiful bike other than the massive brace on the seat-tube. How do they not look at it and see that?

 Marin (bike or place) and sexy in the same sentence?

 That Marin; looks like it has 'bodywork' rather than a frame. Not nice looking to me.

 Looks like a Turner

 @MojoMaujer - so I take it you've never been to Marin?

 @seraph I lived in the Bay Area for over 10 years. Marin may be beautiful, but 90% of the people living there are just stuck up, wealthy a-h-los.

 @MojoMaujer - then attack the people, not the place. I grew up in Marin, lived there for over 20 years, and you're right about the people, but the area is beautiful.

 @seraph Yeah, I mean no doubt is beautiful and still have great friends there. But you know what I mean.

 That was practice for the Blitz to the Barrel race. I watched them send that tandem 20' + during the race.

 There's a couple over here that do most of the enduro and dh races on a custom built tandem, they smash it as well!

 m.pinkbike.com/photo/11322974

 www.pinkbike.com/news/two-by-craigieburn-new-zealand-tandem-video-2014.html

 I searched on google and the first thing to pop up was their website. Practice makes perfect, that'll take you further than a $150 cruch.

 Are you already running a 160 rotor front?

 you can still buy them in that colour, i'm pretty sure it's only if they come on bikes that have specifically gone with black stanchions that you don't the old colour but i could be wrong

 I forgot where I've seen the new 2016 models but most on that lineup had black stanchions.

 At first I too thought kids bikes might actually be one application for this crazy device, but in reality it seems like it would teach them the opposite of brake control. Plus, with any luck they've had some experience using hand brakes before they graduate to a bike with hydraulic discs.

 It means that there are two aluminum links that connect the rear swingarm to the front triangle. It's a similar concept to a DW-link or Giant Maestro suspension design.

 The name though, it's essentially 4-3-2

 True, it gets a little confusing, and saying that it's the third version of their true four bar suspension design that uses two links isn't much better.

 This is why I drink.

 oh f crise sakes!!!

 if you look closely, the x5 shifters and guide brake are not on the Marin bike, its a totally different thing, the bike is full XTR,
and what??
is $9349 too much for a bike?
the other day, actually yesterday i was looking at the paper, and some local nissan dealers have Nissan Versa models for $9000

 Yeah I see it now. Sorry. The Marin does have really nice components though.