Block user

Recent

Added 7 photos to Buysell
May 1, 2022 at 14:24
May 1, 2022
Selling
May 1, 2022 at 14:22
May 1, 2022

Fox 34 GRIP 150mm

$375 USD
2017 27.5" Fox 34 Performance fork (original GRIP damper), currently setup at 150mm Taken off of a Yeti SB5 after a few seasons. I kept thinking I'd use it for a project bike, but it keeps sitting on the shelf, taunting me and has to go. Stanchions are clean (see pics) with no scratches. Lowers were serviced routinely. Steerer tube is at 22.5 cm. Overall, in solid shape. Buyer will pay shipping if it's not a local (SoCal - Orange County) pickup.

celstark pinkbikeoriginals's article
Feb 20, 2020 at 14:19
Feb 20, 2020
Video: Clipless vs. Flat Pedals - The Pros and Cons of Both
@fautquecaswing: Absolutely. There are pluses to being attached and on those tech bits where I just want a touch more power *now*, being unable to pull while on flats is a downside. But, to start the video saying it's clear that we have a 15-30% efficiency on climbs doesn't capture that.
celstark pinkbikeoriginals's article
Feb 20, 2020 at 10:40
Feb 20, 2020
Video: Clipless vs. Flat Pedals - The Pros and Cons of Both
OK, so I posted a bit in a reply, but thought it'd be worth doing this more long-form... We have Ostler, Betts, & Gore (2008) "Gross cycling efficiency is not altered with and without toe-clips", https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410701332507. This looks at VO2 with flats vs clipped in (straps in this case) min a lab environment. Clipped in was numerically higher in V02 and there was a 99% chance that clipped in was not more efficient. Aka, there is no statistical difference between them and if you ignore the stats (which, please don't) it said that flats were better. We have Shaw & Kram (2016) "Effects of shoe type and shoe–pedal interface on the metabolic cost of bicycling " https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2016.1140817. This looked at running shoes on cheapo flats vs toe clips vs. the cyclist's personal clip setup. "As hypothesized, there were no significant differences (p > 0.57) in the metabolic power consumed for pedaling at 50,100, and 150 W: Nike Free and flat pedals: 445.7, 619.0, and 817.9 W; Nike Free and quill pedals with toe clips: 428.7,600.7, and 818.0 W and cycling shoes with clipless pedals: 441.6, 612.3, and 806.4 W, respectively. Though cycling shoes may have comfort or safety benefits, they do not enhance efficiency." There are certainly differences between flats and clips, but it seems wrong to walk in with the claim that it's patently obvious that flats are less efficient when the science says there's no difference.
celstark pinkbikeoriginals's article
Feb 20, 2020 at 10:12
Feb 20, 2020
Video: Clipless vs. Flat Pedals - The Pros and Cons of Both
@gumbytex: Right - like this paper Gross cycling efficiency is not altered with and without toe-clips Laura M. Ostler , James A. Betts & Christopher J. Gore To cite this article: Laura M. Ostler , James A. Betts & Christopher J. Gore (2008) Gross cycling efficiency is not altered with and without toe-clips, Journal of Sports Sciences, 26:1, 47-55, DOI: 10.1080/02640410701332507 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410701332507
celstark pinkbikeoriginals's article
Feb 20, 2020 at 10:09
Feb 20, 2020
Video: Clipless vs. Flat Pedals - The Pros and Cons of Both
@Monsterman156: same here. I’ve looked at the papers and even for roadies it’s not this.
celstark trek's article
Oct 8, 2018 at 16:54
Oct 8, 2018
Winner Announced: R-Dog's Bontrager Tire Giveaway
@Maxxis: Thanks for chiming in on all this. I've been running DHF / Ardent for awhile but am mixing it up as I try to drop the rolling resistance a bit. Turning to the website though hasn't helped on a few things and, while the PDF catalog gives more, it's still not enough. Case and point - what is the relative rolling resistance for DHF (DC), DHF (3C Maxx Terra), Ardent (Single), Ardent (Dual), Rekon (Dual), Rekon (3C Maxx Terra)? We know the compound affects grip and rolling resistance, but we don't know really how these all line up. The website doesn't say anything from what I can see. The PDF catalog gives bar ratings, but don't break them down by compound. For example, overall the DHF is given a 3-bar "rolling efficiency" in the PDF catalog, the Ardent 2-bar, and the Rekon 3-bar. But, we know that the dual-compound is harder than the 3C Maxx Terra in the center, so how do we have just one rating on rolling resistance and which compound is it rated on? Why, while we're at it, is the Ardent rated so badly? Heck, while here, the Aggressor is given 4-bars, putting it faster than any of these and on par with an Ikon. Is it really that fast - faster than a Rekon?
celstark danielsapp's article
Sep 11, 2018 at 8:55
Sep 11, 2018
First Ride: Yeti's New SB130
@mtbikeaddict: Sure, when you compare to a Giant or a Diamondback, they're more expensive. Are those "normal"? Are they "normal" for a review site we look to for bike porn? BMW's, Audis, Mercs, Lexi (is that the plural of Lexus?) are more expensive than Hondas. Do car mags / sites plaster the latest Civic on the front of the site and tout how it's a great choice for the every-day? Yea - that'd get a lot of us to click and go "oooh!" and click through so they get their add revenue. Duh - there are expensive brands and less expensive brands. Some buyers will focus more on the cost and others less. What I find stupid is that Yeti seems to get singled out for this here on PB. Why is it that Yeti, far more than anyone else here on PB, gets the "oh it's so expensive" flak in the comments? Reviews themselves note the price and that it's up there with the other, similar brands. But, the comments hit the cost like such a tired, old trope it's ridiculous. Level it across the board for bikes that cost $X if you like. Heck, the fact that our pedal-powered bikes often cost more than motorcycles built for similar terrain is a bit crazy. Honda CRF250L could let you ride to the trail, go up and over said trail, and ride home (dual-purpose bike) for the same money. Yet, it's a full-on motorcycle with things like antilock brakes and about a million more parts than are on one of our bikes. How can those to two-wheeled devices cost the same? But, let the complaining be across the board.
celstark danielsapp's article
Sep 10, 2018 at 17:49
Sep 10, 2018
First Ride: Yeti's New SB130
"Oh it's SO expensive... only dentists ..." yadda yadda yadda... SB 130 GX Build: $5199 Trek Fuel Ex 9.8 GX Build: $5199 SC Hightower or 5010 GX Build: $4899 Evil Following GX Build: $5699 SB 130 frame w/ DPX2: $3500 Trek Fuel Ex frameset: $2999 SC 5010 carbon w/DPX2: $2999 Evil Following / Calling frame w/DPX2: $3099 So let me get this straight -- On a ~$5k bike, that it's maybe 10% more suddenly puts it into the "you must be made of cash" territory? Can you make builds for $8k-$10k? Yea. And you can for any of those others as well. Small volume bikes available from dealers cost more. Duh. Odds are you can negotiate that down from your LBS and you can't online. Duh.
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.
dv56 0.020612
Mobile Version of Website