iamsx

@AddisonEverett: I'm pretty sure this still counts as a four bar: 1) bottom link, 2) rear triangle, 3) top link, 4) shock. Just a different configuration than a Horst four bar with 1) chainstay, 2) seatstay, 3) top link, 4) shock.

@lkubica: What's ironic about this is that it's pretty well accepted amongst general aviation designers that a 4130 welded steel fuselage covered in fabric is the lightest and safest (although not most aerodynamic) construction method for aircraft.

@peetyjay: Maybe I’m just talking past everyone - I 100% want to see these guys make a living wage. My point is that, if I, being an unaffiliated third party, dictate the terms of what each deserve for their part in the competition, one or the other is going to get screwed. If the riders get screwed, they leave and Red Bull looses the competition and the money it generates. If Red Bull gets screwed, then they stop the competition and the riders lose their source of income, anyways. I’m not anti-rider.

@peetyjay: Exactly! If the optics are bad, then fans won’t watch and Red Bull won’t make money. If the pay isn’t appropriate, then riders won’t ride and Red Bull doesn’t make money. I want everyone involved to come out on top, and only they know how to negotiate within their best interests. I wouldn’t ever want to force a rider to ride for a wage below what he or she is willing to ride for, and I wouldn’t want Red Bull to pay a wage higher than they are willing. If Red Bull doesn’t take care of the athletes and event staff, they deserve to be put out of business by we the consumers. A lot of these riders became who they are BECAUSE of Red Bull - should they have to pay Red Bull a living wage because of that service Red Bull provided to them? NO! Because that was not part of their mutual agreement. Both parties win when both parties are able to freely negotiate their terms. Both parties lose when one or both lose that freedom.

@MT36: I 100% agree that the riders work hard and provide a real benefit to the companies sponsoring them and the competition. But they do not have a "right" to make money doing this. I would love to make a living riding bikes, too, but no one is willing to pay me to do that. The riders are voluntarily accepting a deal which each sponsor has presented to them. If the terms and conditions of that deal are not acceptable to either party, then everyone is free to not accept it. To compel either party (by force, coercion, regulation, or other means) to enter a deal that is not favorable to them would be a terrible thing. This applies to both the sponsors and to the riders.

I honestly don't understand the "living wage" criticism regarding prize money. There are probably hundreds of riders who would kill for the opportunity to ride in Rampage for free. It is in Red Bull's best interest to create a competition where the world's best riders want to ride, or at least where the sponsors of the best riders want to ride. Prize money is only one part of that equation. As far as I know, all of these riders are free to refuse to ride if the risk is not worth the reward. If not then we have some serious human rights violations going on, and I don't think that's the case.

That’s called the “hourglass” at Bootleg Canyon, and it’s one of the gnarliest lines there. The way this guy crashed was absolute best-case scenario, and it was brutal at that!

That casset brings back bad memories of scarred shins and ripped jeans from back in the triple ring days.

@scott-townes: What if it was actually good, so the PB guys got together to start their own Grim Donut bike company... That would explain the months of silence...

It's a VOR for navigation and approach into Las Vegas and surrounding airports. The surrounding structure is so that the radar has a flat surface to bounce off of (because it's on a mountain rather than flat ground, like most VORs. Bootleg is the best!