trialsrookie

Does anyone successfully run SRAM (HS2) rotors with Shimano brakes? I got sick of warped Ice Tech rotors (tried 86s, 76s and the new XTR discs), and finally the HS2 seems super promising. I've swapped the adapter ofc (203->200mm) but the wear marks indicate that not the full rotor brake area is used. It *seems* that the wear on the pads is correct, but I experience a slight gobble feel esp. when I brake harder at slower speeds. In the meantime I have found a couple of rotor pictures of a full SRAM setup and it seems that there is an unused braking area as well of some 2mm (hazard guess), innermost area.

@Tambo: Fully agree. It's up to us to decide if the difference and (perceived) improvement is worth the price tag.

@ct0413: You are definitely right, still that model looks kind of dated. My 2005 "fun hardtail" Chameleon had a 67° HTA. Also the STA looks rather slack (I actually dig that), however according to specs it's 74.5 effective, which isn't radical but pretty much standard I guess.

Yeah, I applaud Reserve Wheels for developing improved products, and I even won't complain about the price as I understand there was quite some effort (and money) put into product development plus higher end components, low production numbers etc. etc. But in this case it's a bit painful to know there is a really good and proven out of the box solution available... Schrader valves! I've always drilled my 26" rims to mount Schrader valves, but they were always cheap ones and with my new 29" rims I am hesitant to try it (and lose the warranty). But now I realize how much simpler everything worked with Schrader valves. I did convert one old rim to tubeless (Sun Singletracks...), and it worked flawlessly with Joe's Schrader Tubeless valves.

@blackthorne: Yup, horrific color choice! I love Formula's ultraviolet, but not thrown into the mix randomly...

Great discussion & I do have some good takeaways from this episode! One topic could have deserved more attention for me: front and rear center lenght. Why? Because with modern geometry the wheelbase has increased a lot, but mostly because of a longer front end. Still few companies increase the chainstay lenght. This means that in a neutral position with most/if not all the weight on the pedals = bottom bracket, the weight is farther back compared to older bikes. You talk about it briefly and mention that in flat turns you have to put more weight on the center. This is a huge implication for me. If you think about it, this also applies to bike sizing, so larger bikes will need more active weight on the front than smaller bikes, in the case that the manufacturer does not increase CS length with bigger frame sizes (= most of the pack). For me personally the 2 takeaways from switching from older bikes (2005 and 2012) are: 1) I was scared of the long reach at first, but as I'm rather tall (6'3) with long legs I was used to sky high seatposts which increased effective top tube length. Sitting on my supposedly long bike first, it felt pretty short really, of course because the steep seat tube angle does not add length. 2) Going uphill is MUCH easier now and makes way more fun. Having the high seat post meant sitting super back over the rear wheel so the front wheel would lift already on moderate climbs/pitches. Even though I ride my bike to have fun downhill, I spend most of my time in the saddle to get to the pinnacle. Typically the time in the saddle is 5-6 times more than out of the saddle basting downhill. So for me personally I rather optimize my bike for the riding position. In the standing position I have more room to move around and I am not static anyway so ergonomic aspects are less critical to me. Great that you mention effective top tube lenght still has its place in assessing a bike's fit!