basic-ti-hardtail

I’ve been running e-13 cassettes on two bikes for a few years now. Helix 9-50 on one and XCX 9-42 on the other. (I use SRAM chains with them, XO1 grade) I have an XT 11-42 on my gravel bike, and have spent plenty of time on SRAM 1195. For me, the e-13 products are very good- durability and shifting quality are both on point. I do get a creak out of the Helix once or twice a year, but pulling it off the bike and re-greasing fixes this. It’s nice to see the larger small cog. I’d also be happy with a ‘normal’ 10 or 11 as the smallest cog though.

Sounds like the links and hardware are different, and they don’t want to color match and sell that whole package. Considering the performance is virtually identical and a lot of folks won’t care about / need Transmission… this sounds like a strange way to communicate a reasonable strategy. Counterpoint- given the capabilities of CBF suspension even in this travel bracket, paired with the added weight compared to single pivot frames, I would have loved to see 1 degree shaved from the HA and 1 degree added to the STA for this V2. That and they are SO close to fitting two proper water bottles on the LG and XL which riders in this segment value. But I haven’t ridden one, so take this with a grain of salt. Folks I know who own this bike love this bike.

@kcy4130: cool- thanks for the explanation! I love watching Chris Akrigg do his thing - I’ll have to look up Braydon.

Although the DHR2 mounted backwards on the back wheel isn’t giving me more confidence. Maybe that’s part of the testing? But overall- yes rad to see folks building their own frames meant for serious riding.

As someone with two bikes using CK hubs- one a SS built in 2016 and the other with ISO-B hubs built in 2018- I completely agree. They seem to just get better with time. DT350s with 36t ratchet are my top choice ‘on a budget’ … but when you think about the life of the hub (cost per mile) I wouldn’t be surprised if Chris King is the best value out there. You just need to keep them for a decade :) I’m glad to see the 6-bolt return. This is the way.

I got to the end of the podcast and though… ‘Whoa, I don’t think they ready any ads!” Then I realized the *entire podcast* was and ad. I still want a slightly lighter, micro-spline link-glide cassette.

I strongly agree proportional fit for shorter / taller riders needs to improve. [And stack height is crucial] I would add to your list the effective STA is often not adequately addressed across size extremes. The further the actual STA is from the effective STA, the harder it becomes to design something that works for everyone... but in particular riders with very long legs. > Stop putting cheap [rear] hubs on high-end bikes. No one deserves DT370 (or worse) on a $7k+ bike. > Provide necessary adaptors (this goes esp. for frame only)... if you design a frame that most riders will use a 180mm or 200mm rotor with, don't sell it with a 160mm post mount and no adaptor.

Agreed! And for the same $$ 11 speed shifts better too. I’ve ridden both GX and XT 12 speed (new, adjusted correctly) and I still think 11 speed XT outperforms both over the long haul… Paired with a Sunrace or shimano 11-46 cassette and a 30t chainring it will be plenty of range for most folks. Also- depending on where you live and how you ride, don’t overlook a good modern hardtail. My SS hardtail is a dream when it comes to upkeep :)

@dwbaillar: 100% Agree- Seb’s article is well written and interesting, but it’s clearly the perspective of a rider with a very specific style and preferences cultivated over years of riding a particular type of terrain. I live in NW Arkansas, where most of the trails have 300-500ft elevation change from top to bottom. It’s rocky, there is a lot of technical climbing, and there is a broad mix of old and new school trails. I’m lucky enough to have multiple bikes these days, so I think a lot about the differences between each. It’s still amazing how different a trail can feel depending on whether you bring a long-travel trail bike vs a progressive SS hardtail. One VERY significant point I’d like to make in contrast to Seb’s article here is how much easier a lighter, shorter travel bike is to manage on the terrain I ride. My short travel bike leaves SO much more energy in the tank to attack technical challenges like step-ups and rocky technical climbs- especially once you begin to get tired. Also, as someone who spends about 60% of my time on shorter travel bikes, I’ve noticed the exact opposite of Seb’s findings on the descents. I’ve been getting a lot of PRs on my shorter travel bike with lighter tires. I think this is because I can accelerate faster, and much of the descents here have tight rocky corners that scrub speed. While I feel more composed on my Ripmo, it’s only faster when the trails allow me to carry speed through the chunk that I just couldn’t on the shorter travel bike. Lastly, I’ll address your main point, which is that the longer travel bike is just LESS FUN for 80% of my riding because they feel muted / dead. I know this is personal preference - and one that I’ve come to after a decade of riding hilly vs. truly steep terrain. But the same is true for Seth’s preferences for a longer travel bike… its the product of much more than tires / weight / travel numbers. I’d love to see a similar article written from the perspective of someone who lives in the middle of the USA and has different innate biases.

"...the SB160 is only available in carbon and isn’t inexpensive." From the Effective Writing practices tutorial guide: "A double negative is a statement containing two negative words. It is not part of standard English, and its use should be avoided." I think a better way to say this would be to say it IS EXPENSIVE. Why are we tiptoeing around reality here?