Jun 8, 2017 at 9:21Jun 8, 2017
Pivot - UCI World Cup DH Fantasy Contest - Rd 3, Leogang 2017
Women: 1. Tahnee Seagrave 2. Tracey Hannah 3. Mirriam Nicole Men: 1. Loic Bruni 2. Aaron Gwin 3. Loris Vergier
May 31, 2017 at 16:06May 31, 2017
GT – UCI World Cup DH Fantasy Contest – Rd 2, Fort William 2017
1. Vergier 2: Hart 3: Gwinn - 1: Atherton 2: Seagrave 3: Carpenter
Apr 26, 2017 at 15:55Apr 26, 2017
SRAM – UCI World Cup DH Fantasy Contest – Rd 1, Lourdes
Pro Men: 1. Loic Bruni 2. Danny Hart 3. Greg Minnar Pro Women: 1. Rachel Atherton 2. Tahnee Seagrave 3. Miranda Miller
Nov 2, 2016 at 13:13Nov 2, 2016
Inside Stages Cycling
@grgsmith: Your hub doesn't ratchet because the rider keeps applying torque to the chainring, which in turn keeps the pawls engaged. Measuring cadence and then backing out angular velocity is probably a reasonable assumption for road cyclists where the incline angle doesn't change much per stroke (and your cadence doesn't change much within a cycle), but it's less well suited to mountain biking where cadence can change appreciably in a single cycle. Given the sampling rate available with even pretty basic chips, I'm guessing they're sampling both the strain gauge and the accelerometer at (at least) 1kHz. At a cadence of 90, that sampling rate means that you're sampling approximately every degree of crank rotation, which gives you a far more accurate power measurement than looking at cadence because it gives you a far more accurate view of how both angular velocity and torque change within a cycle. .... all that said, I kinda doubt that you can look at the power output within a cycle, and I really doubt that the higher sampling rate has much of an effect on the overall energy output in a ride..
RubyRedJed ikeizer's article
Jul 2, 2016 at 16:33Jul 2, 2016
Drama in Nove Mesto: Men U23 and Women Elite - 2016 XCO World Championships
RIGHT THE FUCK ON LEA!
RubyRedJed EvergreenBryan's article
Nov 23, 2015 at 22:07Nov 23, 2015
Raging River and Tiger: Turning Great Riding into Epic Riding
There's worlds of potential at 27, and I'm excited to see what Evergreen comes up with... but please, please, please, leave the existing trails alone. Turning 27 into the next Tiger or Duthie would be a tragedy.
Mar 28, 2015 at 9:20Mar 28, 2015
Replay: Crankworx Rotorua - DH
Crankworkx - it's astonishing that you found a way to ruin a fantastic event. Here's a quick list of indicators that you effed up. 1. Your commentators are so irritating (Brad J, I'm looking at you) that it's far better to watch the event on silent than put up with the tripe that they spew. 2. Your commentators can't figure out the difference between 'good' and 'well'. 3. More time is spent on sponsors than on the riders, or any pertinent information (The sponsors put this on - I'm not saying that they shouldn't be recognized - but the focus here is the riders). It took almost 30 minuets of bs to get to riding. After this, there's no way I'm dealing with the Whistler or L2A presentations. Please do the athletes, event, and sport more justice.
Jul 23, 2014 at 11:02Jul 23, 2014
FINISHED: Yeti Cycles - Ask Us Anything
Both the old Switch and the new SI operate on similar principles - as Yeti has mentioned. There's a 'Switch' on both platforms - that switch can be thought of as the shortening/lengthening of the effective chain stay length. There's more going on, but at heart, the main pivot moves back in the initial part of the travel to lengthen the effective chain stay and then switches at a pre-determined point in its travel. As far as an infinitely long link - it's just another way of saying that the path is linear. The larger the radius of a circle, the more linear its path will be. A circle with an infinitely long radius is just a line. They're just modeling/describing the linear part of the suspension platform as an infinitely long link.It's worth noting Yeti's discussion of the switch mechanism as well - you do get instabilities with a pivot and don't with a linear slide.
Dec 17, 2013 at 10:07Dec 17, 2013
Court Issues Ruling In Split Pivot Lawsuit
A quick note on patents and innovation: There are a number of people on this thread kicking and screaming and insisting that patents stifle innovation. The very nature of patents requires and encourages innovation. In order to receive a patent, DW needed to demonstrate that his split pivot system was an innovation beyond prior art. The same is true (or should be) of any patent. If an idea is patented, competitors can either license the idea (Turner, DeVinci, Iron Horse, etc) or innovate. As the age old adage says, necessity is the mother of all invention. Patents necessitate and encourage innovation by protecting inventions from unlicensed copying.