Block user

Recent

R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 20:55
9 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@TEAM-ROBOT: Nice. Sounds like we've solved mountain biking, then. :)
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 20:52
9 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@TEAM-ROBOT: Yep, aware of this. The point I'm getting at is the steeper the slope, the greater the weight shift, and the greater the weight shift, the more the compression or extension of the suspension element in question. Naturally, the rider will shift their body to partially compensate, the terrain still extends and compresses the suspension elements, spring and damper properties can be tuned to compensate ... I'm just talking about the general principle, which holds true when averaged over time for the conditions mentioned above.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 19:11
11 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@andrewbikeguide: If only some genius - some brilliant, insightful, [I]genius[/I] - would introduce Size-Specific Kinematics to the bike industry, whereby the rear - and front, in the case of a linkage - kinematics account for the varying masses and centre of mass locations of the expected riders to produce the same performance and feel across the entire size range!
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 18:46
11 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@RadBartTaylor: I do. I stand by those things, which I'll summarize: • Accelerating on a moto and ascending on a bike are similar because they both produce a force vector toward the rear, which causes rearward weight shift and rearward chassis pitch (shock compression and fork extension), which favour a low front end. • Decelerating on a moto and descending on a bike (with braking to control speed) are similar because they both produce a force vector toward the front, which causes forward weight shift and forward chassis pitch (shock extension and fork compression), which favour a high front end.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 16:24
14 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@RadBartTaylor: Don't try to back away from what you said. You said going downhill on a bike is accelerating, which makes it equivalent to accelerating on a moto, which is why both situations require a low front end. Everything I said after that was to help you see how your mental model is correct for motos, but backwards for bikes.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 16:04
14 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@stiingya: [I]"there are choices out there for almost everyone these days"[/I] Definitely! I'm sure you remember when everything had a 71° head-tube angle, 73­° seat-tube angle, and 17" chainstays - a few weirdos would explore the outer reaches of geometry with a 70.75° head-tube angle or 17.25" chainstays. Life's good now with almost every combination of travel and geometry available, and convergent evolution has confined kinematics to a sensible range.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 13:58
16 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@RadBartTaylor: Do I understand you correctly, that you're equating riding downhill on a bike with accelerating on a moto? The former causes a forward weight bias as the rider controls their speed, while the latter causes a rearward bias. The former causes fork dive and shock extension, while the latter does the inverse. If I understand you correctly - and I feel there must be some misunderstanding - your position would be that the steeper the descent, the lower the front end should be to compensate for the more rapid increase in velocity, which you're equating to an equally rapid acceleration on a motorcycle (which [I]does[/I] warrant a lower front end) ... ?
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 13:25
17 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@RadBartTaylor: I believe accelerating would have a similar effect to ascending, not descending: rearward weight bias and rearward chassis pitch. And yes, that definitely favours a low front. Flip the situation for decelerating / descending.
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 13:11
17 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@Hexsense: I recognize looking at bikes you sold several years ago presents a snapshot of your set-up from quite a while ago, but it's all I had to work with and people rarely completely overhaul their set-ups. Thank you for the clarification and I hope you've found a set-up that suits you ideally and keeps your top-tubes safe!
R-M-R jessiemaymorgan's article
Apr 26, 2024 at 13:05
17 hours
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
@Hexsense: Yeah, that aligns with my perception of the situation. Most riders on L and up frame sizes (again, excluding XC racers and flatter terrain) run a bar with a little to a lot of rise and a moderate to hefty spacer stack - and the larger the rider, the more of each is usually required. Conversely, many riders of XS and S frames have their grips level with, or higher than their saddles, which doesn't look right. I don't know how it feels, but it's not proportionally similar to the set-ups of tall riders. This raises the questions: Are small riders being forced into excessive bar height due to the packaging constraints of 29" wheels and generous suspension travel, or are they living the high-stack dream? Are XL+ riders being forced to ride too low because designers insufficiently accommodate the needs of these outliers on the tall end? The only thing about which I'm certain is I hear a lot more complaints from tall riders who want more stack than small riders who want less.
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 0.060327
Mobile Version of Website