Photos: 223 (13 albums)
Forum replies: 64
I could listen to Martin Whiteley talk shop all day long, the man is an encyclopedia of all things World cup racing.
This slideshow has 9 comments.
Better call Saul
This video has 6 comments.
This feature has 19 comments.
Roost Off World Champ co-conspirator runner up. Pretty sure that sealed the deal with Cube
This photo has 3 comments.
It's a lot to digest for sure, let me try to summarize: 18 hardware options instead of 80; intentionally designed eye-to-eye and stoke length rather than a collection of lengths determined by happenstance; consistent internal pressures and performance across an entire range regardless of length/stroke; decreased friction throughout; increased internal space for modern shock technology; designing bikes around shocks and no longer vice-versa; a consistent platform from which to develop kinematics.
Taken alone none of these is necessarily a major problem, but addressing them all at once is a big collective step toward improving performance. Other than cramming more and more inside of them, the only real change to rear shocks in more than a decade has been a few mm increase in the diameter of mountain hardware.
Everyone loves to use new 'standards' as a punching bag (often because they seem to do the opposite of creating a standard), but rear shocks have never been truly standardized. This seems a logical approach to actual standardization while also delivering real performance improvement. Pinch me.
Interesting comments from Peaty. Much of the impetus for the UCI point rules came from current WC teams and athletes pushing to make the WC's more exclusive to top-tier riders only. Seems those feelings change a bit when confronted with the reality of how difficult it is to gain points when you don't already have them (especially early in the season).
This slideshow has 8 comments.
This was over on bikerumor: “Some manufacturers expect to see durability improvements. For us, it increases the available space for the IFP’s gas volume and damping piston designs,” says Manitou’s chief suspension engineer, Ed Kwaterski. “Others could have increased overlap between the shaft and air can’s bushings and rings – the further apart they are, the more laterally stiff the shock can be. While it the shock shouldn’t be carrying side loads, it could help in some cases. So, some of the sizing being discussed involves lengthening the eye-to-eye for a given stroke length. And it’ll reduce SKUs for all of the suspension brands because, for us anyway, we’re currently stocking more than 100 SKUs, which is ridiculous. This change will standardize the sizes offered and reduce the number of items required to be stocked.”
“It definitely allows for the designers to do more stuff with the shocks internally,” adds John Pelino, DVO’s general manager. “For a size like a 200×57, there’s zero room left over when that shock is at full compression, so you’re very limited as to what you can do with the damping. So switching to something like a 230×60 or 210×55 gives the engineers more room to develop the damping in the shock...
Trunion shocks will likely get more popular, which are shock canisters that put the air can’s mounting bolts on the side of the shock rather than adding length for an eyelet.”
Wouldn't be surprised to see Nico take this one
This slideshow has 2 comments.
Really, this is long overdue. Shock size and hardware has been heading the way of headset and bb standards lately.
When was the last time you serviced your shock's eye-to-eye length?
Silverback going down @ 1:37 or maybe he was just looking for good foreground?
This video has 1 comment.
This one was handmade by Colin Baily's father I believe
This video has 20 comments.
I know the first protos were assembled using whatever spare tubes could be easily sourced at the factory, which in this case happens to make both of those frames as well. The production version looks quite a bit different.
This photo has 9 comments.
This feature has 43 comments.
RIP Lemmy +1
This video has 5 comments.
Just one. It's a Session 4
This video has 15 comments.
For the entire trail it's about 12k top to bottom with an elevation difference of 2000ft. The trail rolls a bit in places and has about 800ft of total climbing so you end up with 2800 ft of total descending.
That's the 'GoPro effect'
Fantastic, though I can't make any comparison to other coil options as I've previously only used an air shock. I've never been one for climbing switches so instead mine alternates between two different DH settings. Much has been made of the dual valve for climbing/descending prowess but where I appreciated it most was in setup. It can be run with identical settings on each and then changes can be made to one valve at a time making it easy to toggle back and forth instantly to feel the difference.