Because of so many people who believe every bike must be lower, longer, and slacker than anything else before it..
It is kinda ironic that people...
Because of so many people who believe every bike must be lower, longer, and slacker than anything else before it..
It is kinda ironic that people who who race at a level well above any of us average riders use much more conservative geometry than what the average rider thinks will allow themselves to ride at a pro level..
Not sure why anyone care, or tries to compare themselves to what pro riders use, or do, or eat, or ride, or….
We aren’t pro riders...
Not sure why anyone care, or tries to compare themselves to what pro riders use, or do, or eat, or ride, or….
We aren’t pro riders, most have 9-5 jobs, families, and mediocre skills at best, trying desperately to fit rides in between house chores and responsibilities. What “we” need doesn’t even resemble what pro riders use on a race course.
I dont think there’s anything ironic about any of it, we’d all be well served to ride what we feel is comfortable, available and within budget.
Does anyone yearn for an F1, or NASCAR to drive daily? Are we shocked to find out that pro MX bikes are stiff, and bone rattling to ride on anything other than groomed MX tracks? Race bikes are race bikes, end of story. Longer slacker bikes are more stable at speed, so they might make up sloppy technique, tired and distracted riders, (the friggin debate that swirls around that).
It would for sure, right up until you had to do an oil change every 500 miles, or have tires made for it (you’re not buying off TireRack.com for this)….I love all forms of Motorsport, and cycling, hell boats too, but a race rig, designed for racing is not a daily drive rig….We all have to get over what so and so races, or rides, or what ever.
I raced motoX for years, at what I believed to be a fairly high level. Had a chance to spend a weekend with a first class moto team, and realized my world was a different galaxy from what I had experienced there. They had several bikes, varied setups, qually motors, race only motors (split from heats and mains) it was mind blowing to me.
Add to the fact that most racers have little idea to what they are actually riding (in terms of setup, components, or their internals) take anything a pro says with one of those silly salt crystal lamps…..
To me the most important thing in my bike is the set it and forget it part of it. I don't fiddle with anything, I take it off the wall rack and go for the a ride and ride. I don't want to extract 5 % more performance from it, I want the break from the rest of the things in life and just have fun riding it.
Helmet strap, helmet itself (the peak), jersey, shorts, kneepads, even the shoelaces (if applicable) the forks shape, knobbly tyres, low rims, brake calipers, etc.
And of course riding position. I picked off quite a few people furiously pedalling in both Megavalanches I did just tucking and chilling on flat-ish straight gravel roads. Tuck is king.
Does someone know anything about a new trek fuel ex? A new tallboy, a new yeti SB something, a new spz enduro, a new Norco sight...
Does someone know anything about a new trek fuel ex? A new tallboy, a new yeti SB something, a new spz enduro, a new Norco sight? Following the idea of 3-4 year update, I think those bikes fall into that category...
yes...
I saw the new Fuel EX in person a few weeks ago. All I can say is its totally different ascetically than anything T has ever produced before. 150mm 36 up front, 140mm Float X out back. Internal frame storage and ABP still there. Longer reach, lower top tube/stand over. The 9.9 will have an "AXS" build and an "AXS Flight Attendant" build to suit the new rockshox lines.
As far as the Yeti's go, the race teams are using over stroked 150's that get 155/156 rear travel. So I would suspect the new bike to be a "SB155"
yes...
I saw the new Fuel EX in person a few weeks ago. All I can say is its totally different ascetically than anything T has...
yes...
I saw the new Fuel EX in person a few weeks ago. All I can say is its totally different ascetically than anything T has ever produced before. 150mm 36 up front, 140mm Float X out back. Internal frame storage and ABP still there. Longer reach, lower top tube/stand over. The 9.9 will have an "AXS" build and an "AXS Flight Attendant" build to suit the new rockshox lines.
As far as the Yeti's go, the race teams are using over stroked 150's that get 155/156 rear travel. So I would suspect the new bike to be a "SB155"
sounds very interesting regarding the Fuel EX
my guess is the new Yeti race enduro will have 160 travel outback.
It was more of a joke, no worries.
To me the most important thing in my bike is the set it and forget it part of...
It was more of a joke, no worries.
To me the most important thing in my bike is the set it and forget it part of it. I don't fiddle with anything, I take it off the wall rack and go for the a ride and ride. I don't want to extract 5 % more performance from it, I want the break from the rest of the things in life and just have fun riding it.
Apologies, none of my rant was directed at you, or anyone in general.
Amen to your attitude about what bikes mean for you,
I’m a bit of a fiddler myself, but I’m not chasing someone else’s setup, just trying to appease my own general curiosity
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot...
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……
Yep, that's exactly why DH racers have tighter and tighter kits, 'cause there is no aero gain doing it
I didn't say it's not more aerodynamic. What I insued is that going for or defending the existence of through headset routing because of aerodynamics is, not sorry to say this, idiotic on a mountain bike. As in the gains are SOOOO marginal compared to easy fixes on so many other areas it makes ZERO sense to do it purely for aero gains. And the team mechanics will love them too.
So there is no practical reason to go for internal routing, just vanity. On a mountain bike.
Also, when it comes to road bikes and aero... Yeah, it matters, but apparently the biggest gain you can do when starting out is to fix your riding position. Then do all the work on the bike, the kit with special materials, etc.
Use the pareto principle. Don't start with the little things, start with the big ticket items.
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot...
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……
Yep, that's exactly why DH racers have tighter and tighter kits, 'cause there is no aero gain doing it
At the absolute highest level, maybe. But that’s not where anyone lives, save the best of the best.
The tighter kit also has some other “gains” that aren’t aero influenced. You see many skin suits ono guys riding motox, or moto enduro….
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot...
On a road bike, there is no doubt that chasing aero gains makes some sense.
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……
At the absolute highest level, maybe. But that’s not where anyone lives, save the best of the best.
The tighter kit also has some other “gains”...
At the absolute highest level, maybe. But that’s not where anyone lives, save the best of the best.
The tighter kit also has some other “gains” that aren’t aero influenced. You see many skin suits ono guys riding motox, or moto enduro….
This. Aero has a place once you hit a certain point, other wise me and the riding buds wouldn't speed tuck on the last slight downhill to the shuttle lot every time trying to beat everyone else, but like most things, its smaller and smaller gains the tighter you get. When does it stop being worth it? And pants makes sense. Its an easy thing to change and not everyone is stuck with it every day. Wearing a pair of baggy moto pants/shorts that get caught in everything and flap around is also super annoying so that could have had something to do with the change. Not sure if anyone else remebers Fairclough or Gee catching their pants on their seats years ago, but that's unlikely to happen today even if there was a wardrobe malfunction.
I saw once housing worked out to 1watt/10cm @45kph on a roadie forum. With headset vs frame routed, it likely works out to a very generous 15 watt difference at that speed with average internal cable routing. I hit 45kph+ a few times per ride for about a total of maybe 10 minutes per day if i'm totally clipping on a flow section or something i know super well. So, Is a 15 watt decrease in wind resistance for 10 minutes of a 3 hour ride day matter when I'm about to smash a PBR and a half a lumberjack sandwich before the next lap? I know it doesn't and since we're mountain biking, your tire choice makes far more of a difference than your cable routing for watts. You're better off running Maxxis Aspens if that's what your worried about. Hell, your tire pressure makes a bigger difference than your cable routing.
And does that 15 watt difference work for 98% of riders when they need to replace a damaged brake line after a weekend if it costs 130$+ in labor and up to 90$ in parts because their bike design causes the need for both brakes to be bled and maybe both lined swapped, the headset serviced, the fork removed and maybe a new shiftier cable and housing because they all have to be removed to swap the single damaged brake line? Because a few years ago it cost 40$ to replace and bleed a line and none of the rest needed to be touched. Not a fucking chance in hell that its worth it. Maybe 2% of ultra keeners who spend too much time reading into the wrong internet forums want this. There's other stuff you can do than make an excuse for a shit design.
I'll forever be very vocally opposed to through headset or stem design. I eventually warmed up to internal routing, but anything that adds more than 5 minutes to a job that already people want to pay nothing for for isn't worth it for the vast majority. I'll always shudder at the memory of the first Scott Foil internal routing I did. The fact shops need to raises prices already to cover the cost of routing cables through small ports on 600$ hybrids is insane when a cleanly routed under the top tube design will make 99% of consumers happy and increase shop efficiency to get customers bike back to them to ride. Instead, I'm teaching some poor new Jr builder kid a new vocabulary because I need almost 2 hours, 4 hands and an X-ray machine to change the spacer stack on the hot new Cervelo or Scott that some design engineer or product manager thought it would be "Hype" with zero thought into the care and long term viability of their product.
I didn't say it's not more aerodynamic. What I insued is that going for or defending the existence of through headset routing because of aerodynamics is...
I didn't say it's not more aerodynamic. What I insued is that going for or defending the existence of through headset routing because of aerodynamics is, not sorry to say this, idiotic on a mountain bike. As in the gains are SOOOO marginal compared to easy fixes on so many other areas it makes ZERO sense to do it purely for aero gains. And the team mechanics will love them too.
So there is no practical reason to go for internal routing, just vanity. On a mountain bike.
Also, when it comes to road bikes and aero... Yeah, it matters, but apparently the biggest gain you can do when starting out is to fix your riding position. Then do all the work on the bike, the kit with special materials, etc.
Use the pareto principle. Don't start with the little things, start with the big ticket items.
I'm into vanity and flat would like my bike to look better. The extra 15 minutes (really more like 5 minutes) annually while working on a bike doesn't bother me personally.
Each 1" of exposed cable at the front of the bike equals 1-2 lost watts (at road bike speeds). I guarantee that my Spur has 60" easily of exposed cable (15" x 4 cables/ hoses). I averaged 9.8 mph on the last ride and certainly that isn't road bike speed but I'm going to safely assume 6 watts constant, which is enough to matter. That's only .1 watt per inch due to much lower speeds. It could be 2x that which is the difference between an aggressive rear tire and a XC rear tire. It's very noticeable.
Of course gear, positioning, etc. all have an aero effect, probably a larger one. However this is a way to have notable gains for essentially no cost in terms of your on bike performance.
I'm into vanity and flat would like my bike to look better. The extra 15 minutes (really more like 5 minutes) annually while working on a...
I'm into vanity and flat would like my bike to look better. The extra 15 minutes (really more like 5 minutes) annually while working on a bike doesn't bother me personally.
Each 1" of exposed cable at the front of the bike equals 1-2 lost watts (at road bike speeds). I guarantee that my Spur has 60" easily of exposed cable (15" x 4 cables/ hoses). I averaged 9.8 mph on the last ride and certainly that isn't road bike speed but I'm going to safely assume 6 watts constant, which is enough to matter. That's only .1 watt per inch due to much lower speeds. It could be 2x that which is the difference between an aggressive rear tire and a XC rear tire. It's very noticeable.
Of course gear, positioning, etc. all have an aero effect, probably a larger one. However this is a way to have notable gains for essentially no cost in terms of your on bike performance.
Not getting enough downvotes eh?
If I were a pro racer, I would quit the team if my mechanic had to work on headset routed cables.
If we don't ride with decals on the forks they'll never suspect anything
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/04/27/12443/s1200_IMG_9383.jpg[/img]
If we don't ride with decals on the forks they'll never suspect anything
I don't think they are really trying to hide it, saw a handful of people running the new stuff at the NW Cup last weekend, with decals.
I raced motoX for years, at what I believed to be a fairly high level. Had a chance to spend a weekend with a first class moto team, and realized my world was a different galaxy from what I had experienced there. They had several bikes, varied setups, qually motors, race only motors (split from heats and mains) it was mind blowing to me.
Add to the fact that most racers have little idea to what they are actually riding (in terms of setup, components, or their internals) take anything a pro says with one of those silly salt crystal lamps…..
To me the most important thing in my bike is the set it and forget it part of it. I don't fiddle with anything, I take it off the wall rack and go for the a ride and ride. I don't want to extract 5 % more performance from it, I want the break from the rest of the things in life and just have fun riding it.
And of course riding position. I picked off quite a few people furiously pedalling in both Megavalanches I did just tucking and chilling on flat-ish straight gravel roads. Tuck is king.
I saw the new Fuel EX in person a few weeks ago. All I can say is its totally different ascetically than anything T has ever produced before. 150mm 36 up front, 140mm Float X out back. Internal frame storage and ABP still there. Longer reach, lower top tube/stand over. The 9.9 will have an "AXS" build and an "AXS Flight Attendant" build to suit the new rockshox lines.
As far as the Yeti's go, the race teams are using over stroked 150's that get 155/156 rear travel. So I would suspect the new bike to be a "SB155"
my guess is the new Yeti race enduro will have 160 travel outback.
Amen to your attitude about what bikes mean for you,
I’m a bit of a fiddler myself, but I’m not chasing someone else’s setup, just trying to appease my own general curiosity
I do think the internal routing could just be an option.
https://youtu.be/DKSIt1rprN4
Arrrggggh I am so confused right now !
Mtb, I’m not sure chasing the aero gains makes a lot of sense. It’s a much more dynamic sport, with constant acceleration, deceleration, standing, sitting, squatting, jumping, slidin, etc. How are you going to chase aero gains while going sideways around a corner, foot out, sliding hooting and hollering……
So there is no practical reason to go for internal routing, just vanity. On a mountain bike.
Also, when it comes to road bikes and aero... Yeah, it matters, but apparently the biggest gain you can do when starting out is to fix your riding position. Then do all the work on the bike, the kit with special materials, etc.
Use the pareto principle. Don't start with the little things, start with the big ticket items.
The tighter kit also has some other “gains” that aren’t aero influenced. You see many skin suits ono guys riding motox, or moto enduro….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3e7DA4iGao
I saw once housing worked out to 1watt/10cm @45kph on a roadie forum. With headset vs frame routed, it likely works out to a very generous 15 watt difference at that speed with average internal cable routing. I hit 45kph+ a few times per ride for about a total of maybe 10 minutes per day if i'm totally clipping on a flow section or something i know super well. So, Is a 15 watt decrease in wind resistance for 10 minutes of a 3 hour ride day matter when I'm about to smash a PBR and a half a lumberjack sandwich before the next lap? I know it doesn't and since we're mountain biking, your tire choice makes far more of a difference than your cable routing for watts. You're better off running Maxxis Aspens if that's what your worried about. Hell, your tire pressure makes a bigger difference than your cable routing.
And does that 15 watt difference work for 98% of riders when they need to replace a damaged brake line after a weekend if it costs 130$+ in labor and up to 90$ in parts because their bike design causes the need for both brakes to be bled and maybe both lined swapped, the headset serviced, the fork removed and maybe a new shiftier cable and housing because they all have to be removed to swap the single damaged brake line? Because a few years ago it cost 40$ to replace and bleed a line and none of the rest needed to be touched. Not a fucking chance in hell that its worth it. Maybe 2% of ultra keeners who spend too much time reading into the wrong internet forums want this. There's other stuff you can do than make an excuse for a shit design.
I'll forever be very vocally opposed to through headset or stem design. I eventually warmed up to internal routing, but anything that adds more than 5 minutes to a job that already people want to pay nothing for for isn't worth it for the vast majority. I'll always shudder at the memory of the first Scott Foil internal routing I did. The fact shops need to raises prices already to cover the cost of routing cables through small ports on 600$ hybrids is insane when a cleanly routed under the top tube design will make 99% of consumers happy and increase shop efficiency to get customers bike back to them to ride. Instead, I'm teaching some poor new Jr builder kid a new vocabulary because I need almost 2 hours, 4 hands and an X-ray machine to change the spacer stack on the hot new Cervelo or Scott that some design engineer or product manager thought it would be "Hype" with zero thought into the care and long term viability of their product.
Each 1" of exposed cable at the front of the bike equals 1-2 lost watts (at road bike speeds). I guarantee that my Spur has 60" easily of exposed cable (15" x 4 cables/ hoses). I averaged 9.8 mph on the last ride and certainly that isn't road bike speed but I'm going to safely assume 6 watts constant, which is enough to matter. That's only .1 watt per inch due to much lower speeds. It could be 2x that which is the difference between an aggressive rear tire and a XC rear tire. It's very noticeable.
Of course gear, positioning, etc. all have an aero effect, probably a larger one. However this is a way to have notable gains for essentially no cost in terms of your on bike performance.
is it really so hard to not derail this thread every 2 pages?
If I were a pro racer, I would quit the team if my mechanic had to work on headset routed cables.