Block user

Recent

Mar 13, 2024 at 20:38
Mar 13, 2024
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Mar 8, 2024 at 16:42
Mar 8, 2024
First Look: Lee Cougan Crossfire Trail XC Bike
@HumpDiesel: Yes, if people aren't used to seeing XC bikes and/or riding XC terrain, XC geometry looks antiquated. XC riding on XC terrain is what we used to do ages ago, so the geometry that (sort of) worked then is similar to what works now for similar conditions. Other categories of riding have greatly expanded the terrain, speed, and riding styles of modern mountain biking, which have necessitated new geometry for those categories. XC needed only some minor tweaks, which - inexplicably - have taken longer to arrive than the creation and refinement of other categories. My opinion is that XC bikes benefit from a steeper seat-tube angle than the traditional 73°, which requires a longer reach to maintain a suitable butt-to-bar length. Not as steep as a long-travel chassis, though, for the reasons discussed in my previous post. I believe most XC riders and use cases benefit from a modest amount of the typical geometry modernization changes, though I'm sure there are some use cases and rider preferences that will favour true old-school geometry.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Mar 7, 2024 at 15:09
Mar 7, 2024
First Look: Lee Cougan Crossfire Trail XC Bike
@crazy-canuck, @chriskneeland, The ideal seat-tube angle (for a given rider) depends on travel and terrain. The effect of terrain slope is intuitive: if we want to maintain an ideal seat-tube angle when climbing, the static (i.e. flat ground, unsagged) angle has to be steeper than ideal by the slope of the climbing terrain. Everyone's trails are different, so this varies from rider to rider. "Winch and plummet" riders are the most extreme case - not because their climbs are necessarily the steepest, but because the only time they're seated is on climbs, so they have no need for the seat-tube angle to be suitable for seated pedaling over mixed terrain. The effect of travel is often overlooked: More travel means more sag when the rider's weight is heavily rearward on a climb due to the slope of the ground, so the static seat-tube angle of a long-travel bike has to be steeper than that of a short-travel bike to compensate for the greater sag. Finally, keep in mind that old-school seatposts usually had offset heads, exacerbating the problem of already too-slack seat-tube angles - and we couldn't just use a straight post and slam the saddle forward because the front-centre was so short that we would've gone over the front every time we hit a small obstacle.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 2, 2024 at 22:49
Mar 2, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@onawalk: Every comparison needs to have other variables held constant. It is not an attempt to limit the disucssion to favour my view, it is simply how science is done.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 2, 2024 at 15:42
Mar 2, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@onawalk: Re: Frames, forks, ROI There's always a janky, straw man argument to be found, such as old-school catalog frames. Let's limit the conversation to bike companies that have proprietary designs. They have to place the pivots somewhere, and it doesn't cost more to put them where they produce kinematics that are known to be well-liked. Same for the geometry. Mind you, that's also true for catalog frames. Broadly speaking, metal frames tend to be much cheaper than carbon frames. You can typically get an aluminum frame with good geometry and kinematics for much less than a carbon frame with the same. The difference is usually a bit of weight, but the ride experiences are pretty similar, despite the price difference. Therefore, I believe the more expensive - usually carbon - frame has a poor ROI on the cost difference. There's little sense comparing the sale price of a high-end fork to the regular price of a mid-range fork. If we're going to do that, we might as well compare the best-ever price for each - maybe even look at the used market. So let's set a reasonable, consistent standard; I propose OE pricing to allow us to consider the decision from the perspective of a product manager. As such, higher-spec forks keep adding significant performance right up to the point of choosing Fox Performance Elite vs. Factory, at which point the Kashima Coat ROI gets rather questionable. You mention being able to deal with poor suspension as long as the frame, wheels, and contact points are "good quality". Obviously, no one would propose evaluating this ROI question using structurally inadequate parts, so we're mostly talking about weight. And that's what it call comes down to: the difference between items of good quality, but different cost in the frame, wheelset, crankset, handlebar, etc. is typically weight, while the difference in forks and shocks is usually sophistication of the spring and damper. So we can distill the whole argument to this: [B]spring and damper upgrades have a greater ROI than weight upgrades[/B]. And yes, contact points are vitally important to the ride experience, but 1) the discussion is about frame ROI vs. fork & shock ROI; 2) I'm pretty keen on Oury push-on grips, which are among the cheapest respectable grips, so the ROI argument doesn't make much sense here. Re: Damping Every motorsports company that enters the bike market always starts with vastly more damping than the industry standard and always decreases it until it's roughly in line with the norms. Öhlins was no exception - they were actually one of the most dramatic examples. I recall a podcast with the Öhlins bike project leads where they started testing with what they thought ought to be a suitable damper. Their test riders eventually settled on about half the compression force for racing, which Öhlins halved again for the consumer model. Most people felt the early Öhlins bike forks had too much damping and were uncomfortable, so Öhlins halved it again, then reduced it a smidge more for the latest generation. Bikes are not motorized vehicles and what works for the latter doesn't work for us. That said, I believe most suspension would benefit from more compression damping, and I suspect the reason the bikes of Bruni and Iles are visibly more composed than those of most other racers is due to a higher ratio of support from their compression damping to support from their springs. A DH racer needs only to be able to endure the experience for a few minutes, so they can get away with a bike that isn't comfortable if it offers more control. I believe more sophisticated dampers that combine speed- and position-sensitive properties (ex. bypass designs) can benefit all riders, at which point we can talk about the ROI of bypass dampers vs. carbon fork legs for designs like this Nine.One.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 2, 2024 at 9:29
Mar 2, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
Most people spend a few grand extra on a car - tick a couple options boxes, buy the more expensive engine, can't bother to learn how to shift a manual, buy new instead of used, etc. Someone spends half that cost difference on a posh fork and we lose our minds. People are weird.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 2, 2024 at 9:22
Mar 2, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@nation: Totally agree in principle, but I have a slightly different perspective on a few points. [I]people’s experience on coil forks in relation to diving has more to do with the fork being more able to move freely in its first 30% of travel[/I] Possibly, but I think the perception of dive on coil forks is because people usually set them up to feel similar to an air spring over the travel that's accessible while bouncing around in the garage, i.e. the first two-thirds or so. As you know, a coil spring rate that allows equal access to the first two-thirds of the travel, compared to an air spring (often with a few reducers), will bottom out far more easily than the air spring. I think this is the reason why many perceive a coil to dive or have less support. Few people understand how much more support the coil should have in the mid-stroke to ensure adequate bottom-out resistance. [I]a coil spring demands more controlled and sophisticated damping to truly offer well rounded performance vs similar air forks[/I] If the coil isn't stiff enough to manage bottom-out impacts, the damping has to pick up the slack. Firm compression damping usually feels "harsh" to most people and it takes a sophisticated system to add considerable support while still feeling "plush". For most people and most budgets, the solution is simply to run a coil rate that's firmer than expected.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 2, 2024 at 9:10
Mar 2, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@rojo-1: The most important factors in making a frame good don't have to cost extra. Good geometry, good kinematics, and adequate stiffness: all free. Exotic rear kinematics and light weight can also offer benefits, but they cost a great deal and usually offer diminished returns for the money. Forks and shocks maintain a high return on investment to the upper end of the typical price range. Fancy dampers and springs with multiple rates and/or bottom-out devices usually deliver on comfort and control. I haven't ridden the Push fork and can't say whether it's better or delivers acceptable return on investment, but, in general, you're absolutely right about where to spend the money. (For those who want to nit-pick: Yes, products like first generation Fox Rhythm fork have been less expensive and better than their more expensive peers. They don't disprove the thesis, they simply reset the standard and make obsolete the existing expensive products. New high-end products quickly follow and restore the "cheap frame, expensive fork & shock" balance.)
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 1, 2024 at 9:44
Mar 1, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@onawalk: It's the latter. Requires a considerable increase in impact strength in an area that's otherwise a good place to reduce material.
R-M-R dariodigiulio's article
Mar 1, 2024 at 9:44
Mar 1, 2024
Push Industries Releases Nine.One Inverted Fork
@onawalk: It's the latter. Requires a considerable increase in impact strength in an area that's otherwise a good place to reduce material.
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.019770
Mobile Version of Website