Brett Tippie is sporting a custom YT Capra 27 at Crankworx Innsbruck. It's decked out with a wild parts pick, which is expected from Freeride's King of the Crowd, but the topper is a glow-in-the-dark paint job by Erik Irmisch that literally must be seen to appreciate. PB photographer Nathan Hughes stayed up late to document Tippie's new bike, along with its night-riding gear.
Turns out that Enve is also in the glow-in-the-dark game with a special sticker kit (including Canadian maple leafs, just for Tippie) they applied to the 735 wheelset. To ensure that Tippie could see as well as he hoped he's be seen aboard the large-sized YT, he is outfitted with a Niterider AM 1800 lumen
headlamp and a second 3600 Lumen DH handlebar-mount lamp - essentially, enough candlepower to temporary blind most of spectators at a night-time pump track race - definitely the highlights of Tippie's new toy.
Magura MT7 Raceline brakes with 203mm rotors. Ergon GE1 grips on an 800mm-wide Spank Spike Vibrocore handlebabar.
Tippie's Setup Notes:
• Ride Wrap bicycle paint protection
• Brake levers kinda flat for easy reach in attack position
• Brakes adjusted in towards center of bars to align index finger on end of lever
• Fork is stiff to eliminate diving in steep terrain
• Seat is tilted a little bit forward for days with lots of climbing
• Bars rolled back from center a few degrees for stability.
Just in case you wanted to know: Tippie chose a Greg Minnaar signature Maxxis Assegai 2.5-inch front tire. paired with a Minion DHR 2.4 inch rear tire - both with Maxx Grip rubber. Pressures are 25psi up front and 28psi out back. Brett wanted to shout out his mechanic: Dave McInnes at BicycleHub - a service only shop in North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Try translating positive and negative charges to an alien civilization
5" and wishes you were 8
I don't remember, which parts/decals were glowing ?
What a sorted and well thought out ride for his ventures.
Also likin the look of that Oozy saddle proto if it's well enough padded to absorb lard asses ;d
Bike is a beast. Loved it. Climbed better than I’d have ever given it credit for and descended as well as my DH rig.
Who the f*ck made that decision?
Probably someone who doesn’t have your best interests in mind.
And as my RF Turbines are going to be warrantied due to the non driveside which should be fixed nearly dropping off mid ride, I am thinking of going down to 170mm as folk on Ibis forum on MTBR say this has helped a fair bit but I think 5mm - that's sod all difference surely??
When I present on the topic of crank length, I begin by asking where crank length came from. Where did these lengths that we consider “standard” originate from? There are some theories dating back to the origin of the first push bike, or the length that was optimal for the penny farthing bike (bike with a large front wheel and small rear wheel). Most likely, crank length has just been passed down from one generation to another and over time has just become accepted even though there is no basis for the current “standard” with the current bicycles we ride today.
There has been a lot of great research lead by Jim Martin and John McDaniel on the topic of crank length. During the initial study, Martin1 looked at max power and found there was no difference between 145 to 195mm crank lengths, he did note that there was less oxygen (O2) uptake with the shorter cranks.
In the next step, McDaniel et al.2 looked at efficiency and setup a study where cyclists used crank lengths of 145, 170, 195mm, where cyclists pedaled at 40, 60, 80, and 100rpm, at an intensity of 30, 60, and 90 percent of blood lactate. The results showed that O2 uptake increases as pedal rate increases. It’s important to note that pedal rate is not cadence and is defined as the speed of the pedal along it’s axis.
An easier way to think of this would be would be if you took two athletes and placed them on the track. One in the inside lane (we can call this the 145mm crank) and one in the outside lane (the 195mm crank) and both athletes had to run 1 lap (revolution) in 1 minute 30 seconds. The athlete in the outside lane has a greater distance to cover and would have to run at a faster rate than the athlete in the inside lane to both complete one revolution of the track. This would be the same as an athlete pedaling a 145mm and 195mm crank at 90rpm. With the 195mm crank length, the foot speed is higher to cover the revolution at 90rpm compared to the 145mm crank length.
Most report that when they switch to a shorter crank, that their cadence increases. It is theorized that the increase in cadence when moving to a shorter crank length isn’t due to trying to make up for the lack of leverage, but to replicate the foot rate/speed an athlete is accustomed to on a longer crank and to use the extra available O2, which is minimal.
Leverage is another factor to consider. Crank length is only one lever in a series of levers on your bike (wheels, front chainring, and rear cassette). We can change both the front and rear cassette on the fly by shifting gears. Looking at the lever system this way demonstrates how small changes in crank length has minimal impact on the available leverage in this system.
TL R: 170 or 175 makes no difference (0.5%) of max power, and shorter cranks give you faster power delivery. So if you are hitting rocks, go for shorter cranks. The leverage of longer cranks can be achieved by changing gears (interesting that pedal speed is INCREASED with longer cranks).
By the way, I know I've only put one URL up there, but it is the best in the amount of time I cared to spend looking because I know after reading many articles/studies on crank length you won't find an article that says that 5mm change in crank length vastly affects power or endurance or anything you care about. But it does affect rock striking.
Personally, I just run what came with the bike and put crank boots on. And then I go ride.
I would tend to agree with this statement going on my experience and knowledge but not being a complete tech head I wouldn't know for sure.
You’re welcome. My bill is in the mail.
Said that pedal strikes are often a result of bad stroke timing - unthinkably unlikely. Got a reply involving EWS racing references and a few scientific studies on importance of chosing proper crank length.
Yours sincerely Waki
Reply:
Dear Waki, I have reviewd the invoice you have sent me. You idiot. You can criticize someone's crank length and say that engineers at X company are pieces of shit that Pinkbike editors are advertiser sucking whores. Never criticize someone's skill. I'll get it off your salary for June.
Kind regards, Satan
They just learn where they can pedal and where they can’t.
You’ve used some weird statistics to show a small part of the whole equation.
In a situation like mountain biking where you’re constantly putting down power that if you didn’t you’d stop dead due to very little momentum.
These test you’re quoting don’t represent that at all.
Doesn't handicap power. The opposite in a way.
Who rides longer than 165 for dh then?
This discussion is like this Sintra dude on Pole, who said that if you have problem with handling the bike when climbing through a steep rock garden, the solution is not to lift your arse off the saddle, move your COM further up front, no... it's to sell your mainstream bike an buy a Pole because it's geometry solves that problem, you can keep sitting and spinning 90-110RPM on giant saucer of a chainring. And then you have the other dude who told me that long bike suck for switchbacks and that rocking and hopping is an excuse for poor geo. Also, how about we put a smaller chainring on to avoid it hitting rocks - there is research about higher cadence and shit - I'm sure many Pinkbikers could make a case that we all run too big chainrings just like we run too big cranks.
People will go to incredible extents to just keep on sitting on their arse.
#GENUINEQUESTION
I dunno..I spin 175mm cranks faster than other sizes. I think it depends on your shoe size, and possibly your build, i.e. long legs vs shorter legs and the make up of your leg muscles.
:-)
Don’t be so mean.