Photos: 223 (13 albums)
Forum replies: 26
Sam's also say 'Bam' and 'Drake' on the inside tongue of each shoe.
This photo has 5 comments.
To be pulled off the outermost links have to be able to slide inward. The small nubs machined into the sides of the teeth (see next pic) act as hooks and catch the links as they try to slide in and off the teeth. The harder you pull the tighter they grip.
This photo has 6 comments.
At under $150 that's still a lot cheaper than anything in the current XX line
This photo has 3 comments.
In terms of actual display bikes, yes the all-mtn bikes were everywhere (probably due to the intro of 650b and 'enduro', fat bikes, and e-bikes). That said, yes there were far and away more carbon hardtail frames hanging on walls through the exhibition center, but they weren't being used as 'show bikes' at nearly the number as years past. The Taipei show is very much a venue for manufacturers to show off their capabilities to potential clients, and the carbon hardtail doesn't wow the way it once did.
This photo has 4 comments.
Correct, but you only get 1 pt for ruining the fun too quickly. Interestingly enough, a different link can also be fitted to run a conventional shock as well.
The cards next to the newest Auron model only listed 27.5 and 29 so I'm going to guess no 26 moving forward.
Classic Mongo https://instagram.com/p/0PolzAm8Cc/?taken-by=spokemagazine
This slideshow has 7 comments.
Rockshox beat them to the fatbike fork so we get this in response? Has the industry become so nervous about missing the next 'big' thing that they're just chasing niche trends now? Interesting that it's pitched as a fork for semi-fat bikes rather than 'a fork with the same hub spacing as a standard dh fork... etc'
This feature has 13 comments.
That Verdone guy excluded, finding a bad review or test ride experience of a Nomad is like trying to find a photo of Gwin bottoming out his fork and shock at the same time. I mean it's possible, but technically so are unicorns.
This product_review has 13 comments.
Anyone who already owns a bike over $1000 really shouldn't make fun of what kinds of parts others want to spend money on. To the rest of the world all of us already look crazy.
This feature has 12 comments.
This is what all those free-ride-flickers think (wish) they look like ripping corners
This video has 33 comments.
Try here maybe?: http://emarket.srsuntourna.com/collections/auron-service-parts
This product_review has 7 comments.
This slideshow has 9 comments.
Going to assume it's some sort of Mavic deal specifically for the enduro races? Unless Mavic has a new DH tire/rim system in development. He was running his usual Royal/Schwalbe combo at the most recent DH race
This news blog has 11 comments.
You can't be a fan of MTB racing and not be a fan of Jerome. Such a rad guy, always with a great attitude. Even when he was injured this past summer he still came out the EWS rounds and was genuinely pumped to be there.... though he did disappear occasionally for some secret training rides before afternoon beer time. Enduro racing definitely benefits from guys like him and Graves being the face of the sport right now.
This slideshow has 8 comments.
26 aint dead, it just appears to be slightly broken
This feature has 24 comments.
The point is not to compare the # across all bikes. I would never size an xc bike based off the geometry of a dh bike anyway, but i will compare several comparable bikes of the same class (dh to dh, 160mm trail bike to 160mm trail bike etc), and if i'm replacing just my frame gives an indication on how a new frame will fit relative to the old one with the same parts. I love the reach # as much as the next guy, and it's finally catching on, but have you ever tried to measure it yourself on an actual bike? Fastest way to compare 2 frames with similar geometry built for the same purpose is a quick measure of the DT, again the only measurement related to fit that can be taken on the bike as opposed to determining the intersection of 2 invisible lines in space. I would disagree that it is left off to avoid confusion, but rather because bikes are still sized and sold based on how they fit while seated or how long their seat tube is. Good on Transition for trying to change that conversation a bit.
Yes, anyone who passed grade school math can do that. But I shouldn't have to rely on Pythagoras when the manufacturers can just provide the measurement. And many still don't post reach/stack or use conflicting axel/crown measures. Downtube length doesn't rely on any other variable. It's not the sole basis for comparison but it's a constant that anyone can find on their own bike in seconds. It's also the only tube (along w/ head tube height and angle) that determines the fit when standing. Would love to hear a reason why it's not useful to know?
I've been harping on this for years to my friends in the bike biz to no avail, but I really wish manufacturers would publish their downtube measurements. I know, I know its not perfect but it will give you at least a ballpark figure of how a bike will fit while standing (though it will be effected by head angle, headtube height,and fork height as well). Reach is a great # but it's not actually something that can be easily measured in person, whereas I can go up to any 2 bikes with say a 160mm travel fork and measure the downtube with a tape measure to get at least some idea how they will fit (or measure center bb to top, middle, or bottom of head tube if you really want to nerd out).
Somehow geo charts manage to have every conceivable degree and measurement except downtube length. The front of the bike is a triangle but we only get the figures for the 2 sides that effect fit while sitting. Why, in 2015 are we still sizing non-xc/road bikes based on that criteria?
Connect the origins of the 2 invisible reach and stack lines where they meet the frame and you draw a line from center BB to top/center head tube. Call it 'effective reach' or some other buzz word if you like, but just do it already!
If the manufactures won't do it, maybe the mags will?
Bottom-out + Turman's goofy shred face
This feature has 61 comments.