ridingloose

@TommyNunchuck: I’ve received comments like this many times before—for example, because I wrote that 29" rear wheels wouldn’t work for certain riders (naming them specifically), even though they had opted for them and were convinced of their benefits at the time. In the end, I was right every single time. So go ahead and leave your comments—I’ll have the last laugh.

@Jessie-MayM: That´s a factor too, but it influence the amount of load not more than a negative stem. That´s false. Try it out!

Reece Wilson is one of the riders where you could really see him struggling with a sliding front wheel. Some of his crashes could also be attributed to a sliding front wheel. It’s not really a surprise, that the negative stem setup with the high handlebars puts poor pressure on the front wheel. I’m really surprised that others on the team are copying that. Personally, I don’t think it’s exactly a smart move.

But my Gazzaloddis aren´t 29".

So that the Gustav M doesn't look quite so bad when it's the only one that fails to beat the Guide R.

There is no mud in front of most ice cream parlors ...

I agree with Seb Scott: “I'm not an engineer, but I'd be willing to bet a $2,000 / 2,600-gram conventional fork could absorb bumps really well, too.” (and I am an engineer) Almost all current “right side up” forks are not well made by the chassis. Let's take the picture here in the article from EXT to illustrate this: The lower bushing could already be about 35-40mm lower, as shown in the picture, namely at the end of the stanchion. That would increase the bushing overlap by almost 50%. In addition, it would be possible to lower the bottom end of the fork, where the shock piston rod and the air spring piston rod are bolted into the casting, by another 30-40 mm. This would allow the stanchions to be lengthened by the same amount and the lower bushing to be lowered. This would roughly double the bushing clearance. If you also use the area below the axle mount of the casting for the standpipe to dip into, you would even get a larger bushing distance than with a single crown USD fork, because the latter cannot use the area behind the axle. I also think it is wrong to claim that the better performance of USD is due to the bushing spacing. This is only true for dual crown forks. With single crown forks, you can even achieve slightly greater bushing overlap when “right side up” (as described above). In my opinion, the noticeable advantage of current USD forks comes from two things: 1. The fact that the larger diameter tube is located where the greatest loads occur (at the crown). 2. The “right side up” forks are not well designed and have much less overlap than would be possible. This is usually to save weight. If 100-200g more were put into the forks for bushing overlap and stanchion thickness, the performance gap would be much smaller. USD-layout make much more sense with double crown forks, where the bushing overlap can really be much longer.

The Hayes with the original sinter pads are not weaker. With tuning pads from the company Sinter and Galfer Shark Rotors, I would say they are on level of Hope V4 or Trickstuff Maxima. I had two MTs which failed completly in a downhill. I threw the levers to the Bar and nothing happend. They were checked by Magura and they send them back and had not changed anything because they could not finde a failure. The other Mt7 and MT5 had constantly air in the system, despite many complete bleeding processes. Weak bite point comes additional. I would not recommend this brakes Ton anyone.

If I will throw 200€ in the garbage, than I would by MT5s. I had 3 pairs MT5 and MT7 and the are catastrophic and dangerous. Now I am on 3 Pais Hayes Dominion and that was was my best bike Part decition ever.

I agree with Schwalbe. DD is also okay for Maxxis Assagai or Higroller 3. For Minions, I also need the DH version; here, the DD variant seems less stable than with an Assagai.