Varaxis

Had an Evil Following v1 and it had so much kickback that my knees were aching from the unneccessary shock. I think it had so much that just holding the pedals level made it accelerate on compressions. I had tried emtbs that actually kicked back so much that the motor tried to engage its assist from the kickback.

Peace of mind is priceless. For example, I thought I could just lay my bike on the ground on its NDS, but there are times when people walking around gather spots and it becomes a tripping hazard, esp if people want to take pics. Leaning the top tube against something seems preferable over just the grips or saddle, in case it moves. The wrap handles the abrasion better. I have an alum framed bike (not wrapped) and lock it up with a chain often, since I use it as a commuter. There are times when there's a pole atop a fat concrete base, which are like 0 grit sandpaper. Do I look for another spot to lock up my bike or take it? I take it if there's not any other alternative in sight, and the paint suffers. For some, it's sad to look at. These wraps look better than the frame protectors others get, like helicopter tape or whatever. Those are super thick and add a cloudy contrast, and sometimes even have creases still in them from the tape being sold folded up.

@ReformedRoadie: Hope they just keep on making these dialed trail bikes, rather than compromising just to put some novel tech out. The ride handling physics being their priority is like their signature. I know when I see Yeti, I imagine the equivalent of race-track-proven hypercar. Feels like they're made for rockstars who partner up with supermodels (at the peak of their life). A Yeti isn't something I'd take home, personally. I'd look for something with better ownership experience. Less fuss keeping it maintained and beautiful, less babying it... I also appreciate when extra development focus is spared for some NVH optimization--if something has to make noise, tune it to make it sound good.

And here I thought the cycle of going through mediocre designs before finding the peak would be shortened, due to the target market being a bit more open-minded. 29ers were niche in the mid to late 2000s, being mostly an American curiousity ridden on less technical stuff. Early 2010s had XC racers convinced, but it wasn't until the late 2010s that the gravity side saw 29ers on the top step of the podium. The early 29ers had issues borne from just fitting the wheels while trying to keep everything else roughly the same, so the longer CS lengths weren't compensated for until enduro bikes pushed the front out considerably. The Yeti SB150, released in 2018, was one of the first examples of peak 29er, IMO.

Need an innovative design that allows modication of the BB location, like the Ride-9 system maybe, as opposed to EBB. The frame doesn't need to meett at the BB. Can make it so the downtube flows into the chainstays like a moto frame, cradling the BB area from underneath.

@mammal: shortening the front-center has an even stronger effect than lengthening the chainstay. There's a severe shortage of compact short travel bikes with short chainstays, that are made overbuilt. Rocky Mtn Thunderbolt BC nearly 10 years ago was one of the last. It outshined popular options like the Blur TRc. Modern options are not compact: RM Element, Trek Top Fuel, Transition Spur, etc. have enduro wheelbases just with less travel. Canfield Toir was heavy, but had geo that people in the appalachia sought.

I'm inclinded to agree. Someone 5'7" and 220lbs is going to want longer CS than someone 5'7" and 135 lbs. On the same bike, the 220 lb rider will feel the bike doesn't have enough weight on front while the 135 lb rider will question if their bike is ideal for doing "show-off" skills like jumps and tricks, but finding it fine for easy trail riding and general mile-munching. The 135 lb rider would need to be in the mood to do drops, not taking them spontaneously, only willing if they can plan and ready their technique in advance. The 220 lb rider will be cautious about committing to cornering with fingers off the brakes, wary about front washouts, unless they are in the mood for elevating their cornering skills, feeling for a nuanced connection between bike and ground. They learn fast that the front brake can be suicide in any twisty DH terrain, whereas the 135lb rider might actually find the front brake is useful for giving them time to carefully pick their line to avoid OTB risks. Hard to test for height differences, but one can presume that a taller person has a much greater range of motion to find a sweet spot. Can test for weight differences by wearing weights and even measure the difference with scales under both wheels. Excess weight on front = OTB prone, hard to loft front, front prone to dipping down midair, rider technique influenced to be more defensive/rearward (hanging off back), and generally whack suspension setup that is harder to find a good compromise with dive-iness (front divey when riding out of the saddle, or extra stiff when in the saddle if set up to avoid divey feel). Not enough weight on front = patterns of people seeking better front tires, perhap going overkill with DH-like aggressive ones, to compensate for trauma with washing out the front. Similarly discerning with front suspension choice. Elevated sense of ego (superiority complex) when it comes to being in tune with fine grain technique, believing others don't have a similar level of such skill. Budding history of killing rear tires/wheels (perhaps making them interested in more bombproof structural design) and budding interest in progressive leverage ratio curves (and/or HBO).

I'm a believer than long CS goes with long WB, and vice versa. That said, I find WB matters more to what I want to keep in my quiver. Simply put, I don't find it fun riding a bike with WB over 1245mm for everyday trails. Maybe it's okay occassionally to re-experince tired old trails on a different steed, but that's it. I'll even take a steeper than fashionable HTA to get the WB short, while maintaining how much travel I want. Save the long bikes for the bike mountain terrain trips. WB that are too short are needlessly challenging to ride in technical terrain, asking for a lot more manhandling input from a rider. Okay for routes that are worn smooth from a lot of traffic, but tiresome to ride on the paths less taken.

Enduro eMTB turned out to be my quiver killer and "upgrade-itis" cure (mysterious burning urge to research/plan out upgrades). Also replaced many car trips. Extremely glad I got one. Will miss it so much that I will go shopping for another if I ever lose it. Can happily live with strong-cheap (not light) parts attached to it. As far as news on the latest and greatest components goes, only innovative stuff piques my interest nowadays, like those Void pedals. Otherwise, I don't look to upgrade to anything lighter. I feel even worse replacing stuff that's still functional, as fitness-anxiety isn't enough justification anymore, and I don't compete. Long-term ownership experience matters more to me than performance nowadays. It's like a game for me to see how much mileage I can rack up on my parts before replacing, getting extreme satisfaction when I use something up fully (bald tires, full brake pad usage, etc.).

Two biggest money sinks for me: - Racier lower-weight stuff. e.g. Lightweight tires and wheels that traded off robustness for basically pay-to-win fueled dopamine hits. This includes carbon versions of everything, especially stuff that's prone to impact. Got suckered into the "less rotating weight is better" belief. - Low tire pressure experimentation. Expensive lessons to learn what pressure ranges were too low, with rim failures despite tire inserts. Found a happy medium with enduro bikes. Was afraid I might've been talked into a bombproof freeride bike.