Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
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.