edhayetc

@red-don: don't believe everything ai tells you! For starters the suspension layout on this particular frame is incredibly compact, by that I mean all the pivots and the shock mount are located within a very small area around the bottom bracket. The very short distances mean there simply isn't much room for flex, the distances involved are very short. This area is also inherently stiff, even on a lightweight hardtail, so making it stiff enough for this suspension design to work correctly would require very little extra material. There are definitely less compact designs out there on carbon frames which require far more extra material in order to make them stiff enough in order to avoid problematic flex...which in turn makes the frame far stiffer than it needs to be. That leads me to the other statement which is incorrect, which is that the natural compliance of steel would be lost/redundant with a full suspension frame. The flex of a frame can make a massive difference to the grip that a bike can provide because the forces that a frame is subjected to are never simply up and down, a bike is leant over etc. It's for this reason that a huge amount of R&D time and money in Moto GP is spent studying and improving frame compliance, in order to increase grip. In DH racing we have also seen an increasing amount of testing/experimentation with frame compliance, and it can make a significant difference. Yes you could made a bad steel full suss, but equally you can make a bad carbon or aluminium one.

@valrock: due to the demand being so much smaller, quality steel tubing is actually one of the most expensive materials to build a frame from these days, only really surpassed by titanium.

Jackson, Luca, Asa and Max all in Q2! Good luck to anyone else battling it out in there!!

I think that at least some coverage of qualifying is the answer, with full coverage of course being the ultimate solution. I feel that any kind of token or protection system will once again make it a two tier race series, and I think it's a lot better for becoming a more level playing field. I was very sceptical about all the changes when they first came along, like many fans I think, but apart from the lack of qualifying coverage I don't think I'd change a thing now (of course getting to watch it for free or a reasonable amount would be nice!). The World Cup series has always been about the most consistent rider, unlike the boom or bust World Champs, and I just think the current format is even more tailored towards rewarding a consistent rider, and we need to adjust to that, as do the riders. It's now far from inconceivable to imagine the series winner having never won a single race, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's fair to say that any racer at this level wants to win a race, but maybe a smart rider dialling it back a touch is the key to winning the overall? It's fine margins I know, but that in itself could result in fewer crashes and injuries...meaning less of our favourite riders then being missing from the action? I guess you've then got the question though of what is more important to a racer, and a team for that matter? Is it a World Cup race win? Or is it a series title? Maybe you'll have the 'young guns' desperate to get that race win, and all the kudos etc that comes with it, and then once they've got one under their belt they'll then 'settle down' a bit and focus on consistency and the overall title? Whatever the case, I think don't think there will ever be a format that pleases everyone, someone is always going to miss out on finals. Keeping as level a playing field as possible is the most important thing to me...well alongside broadcasting the qualifying!

@IsaacWislon82: I reckon the relatively simple answer/what would make it brilliant for us fans, is if they simply streamed the qualifying. Then I reckon it would be fine to leave everything else as is. If qualifying wasn't behind a paywall then it would also massively increase exposure for the brands forking out all the money to support racers...some of whom we never get to even really see as it stands.

@Neil6: I get what you mean, but track conditions can change so much between Q1 and Q2 that you could easily equally argue that to base it just on time wouldn't be fair.

@edspratt: I totally get that, especially as I wrote for Dirt for over a decade, I just felt your comment came across more snarky than positive (and I also know it's easy to take written online comments in multiple ways, some of which aren't the way the author intended). I guess I just feel he deserves more praise for what he's created for us.

@c-radicallis: I might have been reading into his comment wrong, but I felt the whole 'real people who have put time and effort in' comment to be a really unnecessary dig. From where I stand this guy has put in a load of effort himself to help create something to improve the lack of qualifying coverage shit show for us fans, and for that alone he should be praised. I think what he has done is ace! And this is coming from someone who used to be paid to cover/write about these races.

Top work!!!

@mi-bike: I reckon he should just scrape through by the looks of it.