Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds. at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are just to small...(115-130ht, 635-650 stack eta)
trails have evolved so much, especially since 29'ers became a thing it's time to ride bikes that are big enough without letting this stupid chainstay length thing get to long.
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in...
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in Pemberton and I'm excited to be able to do simple lever bleeds without needing to pull a vacuum. Between this and the old "zip tie the lever overnight" trick, I'm, hoping I should be able to get these things feeling good.
There's a "piston massage" process that seems to be important.Dario mentions it on the pinkypod. Two other reviewers in the mtb-o-sphere mention disliking the brakes with...
There's a "piston massage" process that seems to be important.
Dario mentions it on the pinkypod. Two other reviewers in the mtb-o-sphere mention disliking the brakes with one mentioning "a bleed (from SRAM) that didn't seem to get all the air out." After bleeding with the piston massage those reviewers liked them a lot.
Worth looking up the process (it doesn't seem to be a time-heavy step, just important) and giving it another try, probably!
I recommend some type of "piston massage" process on any hydraulic brake - will be slightly different for 2-pot vs 4-pot and mineral vs DOT but its good practice and I've used it on all kinds of brands over the years
This is getting dangerously close to a brake forum comment, but I think the reason you wouldn't see a vacuum bleeder for brakes is that the...
This is getting dangerously close to a brake forum comment, but I think the reason you wouldn't see a vacuum bleeder for brakes is that the seals are designed to seal against positive pressure, but not against significant negative pressure. I've been testing Mavens and DB8's for the last 6 months and, even though the official SRAM mineral oil bleed procedure recommends drawing a vacuum using the Pro Bleed Kit syringe, I've stopped doing that part of the bleed process because I'm able to draw basically an endless amount of air out of my lines, at the lever or at the caliper, by pulling a significant vacuum. I think the seals are just letting more air in, so I've started bleeding with positive pressure only and that's been working A LOT better. My two cents. Also possible that I'm doing something else wrong, but yes I did try switching syringes, bleed fittings, etc and kept producing endless air bubbles.
Make sure you torque the barb/olive to correct torque and dont use the sram bleed kit. the bit that goes into the lever leaks air.
I've installed probably 30 pairs of mavens and I've not had one come back with issues.
p.s make sure you piston masage with HARD lever pulls and BEFORE!!!!! bleeding, Also Rotate the bike upwards with rear caliper basically vertical. I pull vaccum at the caliper end with lever shut off.
I often get asked how to make the brake less powerful....
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in...
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in Pemberton and I'm excited to be able to do simple lever bleeds without needing to pull a vacuum. Between this and the old "zip tie the lever overnight" trick, I'm, hoping I should be able to get these things feeling good.
There's a "piston massage" process that seems to be important.Dario mentions it on the pinkypod. Two other reviewers in the mtb-o-sphere mention disliking the brakes with...
There's a "piston massage" process that seems to be important.
Dario mentions it on the pinkypod. Two other reviewers in the mtb-o-sphere mention disliking the brakes with one mentioning "a bleed (from SRAM) that didn't seem to get all the air out." After bleeding with the piston massage those reviewers liked them a lot.
Worth looking up the process (it doesn't seem to be a time-heavy step, just important) and giving it another try, probably!
I recommend some type of "piston massage" process on any hydraulic brake - will be slightly different for 2-pot vs 4-pot and mineral vs DOT but...
I recommend some type of "piston massage" process on any hydraulic brake - will be slightly different for 2-pot vs 4-pot and mineral vs DOT but its good practice and I've used it on all kinds of brands over the years
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in...
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in Pemberton and I'm excited to be able to do simple lever bleeds without needing to pull a vacuum. Between this and the old "zip tie the lever overnight" trick, I'm, hoping I should be able to get these things feeling good.
I really hate to derail this conversation but I must talk about those maven cups. I've always been a fan of the Shimano overnight cup bleed rubber band thing and I thought these cups would help me do the same things to my mavens.
Needless to say, it did not work, in fact it made my mavens feel terrible. So I've never used them again and suck with syringes. I think having a bit of positive pressure in the system and "overfilling" it a bit by pushing a little bit of oil from the caliper up with the bleed port on the lever closed makes them feel the best.
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in...
Sick. Sounds like my brakes. I was worried this was somehow my fault. I just purchased a Maven/DB8 compatible bleed cup from Pinner Machine Shop in Pemberton and I'm excited to be able to do simple lever bleeds without needing to pull a vacuum. Between this and the old "zip tie the lever overnight" trick, I'm, hoping I should be able to get these things feeling good.
I really hate to derail this conversation but I must talk about those maven cups. I've always been a fan of the Shimano overnight cup bleed...
I really hate to derail this conversation but I must talk about those maven cups. I've always been a fan of the Shimano overnight cup bleed rubber band thing and I thought these cups would help me do the same things to my mavens.
Needless to say, it did not work, in fact it made my mavens feel terrible. So I've never used them again and suck with syringes. I think having a bit of positive pressure in the system and "overfilling" it a bit by pushing a little bit of oil from the caliper up with the bleed port on the lever closed makes them feel the best.
Though I'd be really interested in your thoughts.
I replied to this in the brake thread but forgot who wrote it and was to lazy to come back and check so I could tag you
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds.at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are...
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds. at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are just to small...(115-130ht, 635-650 stack eta)
trails have evolved so much, especially since 29'ers became a thing it's time to ride bikes that are big enough without letting this stupid chainstay length thing get to long.
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make sense too). While obviously some people who always ride large frames will continue to order the size they normally do without looking at the numbers, I'd wager plenty of people who test ride are sizing down - at least as far as labeled size goes. I looked into the new Ripmo as I searched for a long travel trail bike, but between a long reach (by labeled size) and the not-so-super-steep seat tube angle, it had an effective top tube measurement that I would never be able to work with if I were to go with the large frame, and even the extra medium was on the longer ETT side for me. There were other geo quibbles I had, but the reach is what is being discussed here.
For reference, I'm 6'1" tall, have a 770mm BB to rails saddle height, and prefer my ETT's in the 610mm ballpark, give or take 5mm. I've found that after quite a bit of time riding bikes with a 470-475mm reaches, I prefer my trail bikes between 480-485mm these days paired with a shorter 40mm stem. Because of my fairly tall saddle height on a large frame, the actual seat tube angle matters to me as it directly influences how centered I am on the bike. I also find myself feeling less efficient while pedaling with slacker seat tube bikes, as I like the feeling and efficiency of not having my feet too far in front of me while pedaling. We're talking about fairly minute differences compared to 10 year old bikes, but as geo changes less and less rapidly/significantly, I've really found where my sweet spot lies. I'll get off my soap box now, as these are just my personal preferences.
However, I'll contradict myself for the benefit of Ibis as well. I worked for a manufacturer for a number of years that was on the pioneering side of steeper seat tube angles. I swear, every day for a couple of years (and then occasionally for the next few years I worked there) people complained about or asked why the cockpit of the bike felt so "tight" riding around the parking lot, or mentioned the weight on their hands when riding on flat asphalt. The reaches were fairly current, and the steeper seat tube and 50mm stems were designed to help with technical and/or steeper climbing by keeping the rider centered. However, as a "new trend" it made the bike feel weird when setting it up in the parking lot prior to getting on the trails where the performance benefit became more obvious. To this day I still know people who think "modern" bikes are too short in the cockpit based on ETT - and I'm over here riding the new Sentinel (LG) with a 605mm ETT. Even though this is a broad generalization and there's much more to discussing any bike companies design ethos, companies with geo charts like Ibis will appeal to people who want the "roomy" cockpit feel. However, instead of it being due to old slack STA's and long stems, it's now being driven quite a bit by reach to achieve a similar saddle to handlebar length by those searching out roomier bikes that still have more modern STA's, HTA's, etc.
TLDR: I'm not saying that anyone who wants a 500mm reach bike at 6ft tall is wrong (there are tons of body shapes/proportions, terrain types, and definitely personal preferences), but to say that a large frame has to have a 490+ reach or it was basically designed for teenagers isn't exactly accurate either. Thankfully we have choices!
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds.at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are...
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds. at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are just to small...(115-130ht, 635-650 stack eta)
trails have evolved so much, especially since 29'ers became a thing it's time to ride bikes that are big enough without letting this stupid chainstay length thing get to long.
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make...
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make sense too). While obviously some people who always ride large frames will continue to order the size they normally do without looking at the numbers, I'd wager plenty of people who test ride are sizing down - at least as far as labeled size goes. I looked into the new Ripmo as I searched for a long travel trail bike, but between a long reach (by labeled size) and the not-so-super-steep seat tube angle, it had an effective top tube measurement that I would never be able to work with if I were to go with the large frame, and even the extra medium was on the longer ETT side for me. There were other geo quibbles I had, but the reach is what is being discussed here.
For reference, I'm 6'1" tall, have a 770mm BB to rails saddle height, and prefer my ETT's in the 610mm ballpark, give or take 5mm. I've found that after quite a bit of time riding bikes with a 470-475mm reaches, I prefer my trail bikes between 480-485mm these days paired with a shorter 40mm stem. Because of my fairly tall saddle height on a large frame, the actual seat tube angle matters to me as it directly influences how centered I am on the bike. I also find myself feeling less efficient while pedaling with slacker seat tube bikes, as I like the feeling and efficiency of not having my feet too far in front of me while pedaling. We're talking about fairly minute differences compared to 10 year old bikes, but as geo changes less and less rapidly/significantly, I've really found where my sweet spot lies. I'll get off my soap box now, as these are just my personal preferences.
However, I'll contradict myself for the benefit of Ibis as well. I worked for a manufacturer for a number of years that was on the pioneering side of steeper seat tube angles. I swear, every day for a couple of years (and then occasionally for the next few years I worked there) people complained about or asked why the cockpit of the bike felt so "tight" riding around the parking lot, or mentioned the weight on their hands when riding on flat asphalt. The reaches were fairly current, and the steeper seat tube and 50mm stems were designed to help with technical and/or steeper climbing by keeping the rider centered. However, as a "new trend" it made the bike feel weird when setting it up in the parking lot prior to getting on the trails where the performance benefit became more obvious. To this day I still know people who think "modern" bikes are too short in the cockpit based on ETT - and I'm over here riding the new Sentinel (LG) with a 605mm ETT. Even though this is a broad generalization and there's much more to discussing any bike companies design ethos, companies with geo charts like Ibis will appeal to people who want the "roomy" cockpit feel. However, instead of it being due to old slack STA's and long stems, it's now being driven quite a bit by reach to achieve a similar saddle to handlebar length by those searching out roomier bikes that still have more modern STA's, HTA's, etc.
TLDR: I'm not saying that anyone who wants a 500mm reach bike at 6ft tall is wrong (there are tons of body shapes/proportions, terrain types, and definitely personal preferences), but to say that a large frame has to have a 490+ reach or it was basically designed for teenagers isn't exactly accurate either. Thankfully we have choices!
Exactly, which Is why i referenced my own height an not others, i had a cheeky dig at bikes being small with my first comment which obviously had some effect haha.
I was all about 470-480 reach etc untill i tried a Merida one sixty and it changed my perspective massively, It was nimble but also stable, It turns on its front wheel so well as theres no having to extra weight it.
All the good reviews of it make sense now(i dont really care for reviews online as often influenced by $$$)
Im a big advocator now for bigger bikes and these larges reaches (490-500). but im heavily against the idea of big chainstays, just feel lazy and hangy to me.
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds.at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are...
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds. at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are just to small...(115-130ht, 635-650 stack eta)
trails have evolved so much, especially since 29'ers became a thing it's time to ride bikes that are big enough without letting this stupid chainstay length thing get to long.
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make...
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make sense too). While obviously some people who always ride large frames will continue to order the size they normally do without looking at the numbers, I'd wager plenty of people who test ride are sizing down - at least as far as labeled size goes. I looked into the new Ripmo as I searched for a long travel trail bike, but between a long reach (by labeled size) and the not-so-super-steep seat tube angle, it had an effective top tube measurement that I would never be able to work with if I were to go with the large frame, and even the extra medium was on the longer ETT side for me. There were other geo quibbles I had, but the reach is what is being discussed here.
For reference, I'm 6'1" tall, have a 770mm BB to rails saddle height, and prefer my ETT's in the 610mm ballpark, give or take 5mm. I've found that after quite a bit of time riding bikes with a 470-475mm reaches, I prefer my trail bikes between 480-485mm these days paired with a shorter 40mm stem. Because of my fairly tall saddle height on a large frame, the actual seat tube angle matters to me as it directly influences how centered I am on the bike. I also find myself feeling less efficient while pedaling with slacker seat tube bikes, as I like the feeling and efficiency of not having my feet too far in front of me while pedaling. We're talking about fairly minute differences compared to 10 year old bikes, but as geo changes less and less rapidly/significantly, I've really found where my sweet spot lies. I'll get off my soap box now, as these are just my personal preferences.
However, I'll contradict myself for the benefit of Ibis as well. I worked for a manufacturer for a number of years that was on the pioneering side of steeper seat tube angles. I swear, every day for a couple of years (and then occasionally for the next few years I worked there) people complained about or asked why the cockpit of the bike felt so "tight" riding around the parking lot, or mentioned the weight on their hands when riding on flat asphalt. The reaches were fairly current, and the steeper seat tube and 50mm stems were designed to help with technical and/or steeper climbing by keeping the rider centered. However, as a "new trend" it made the bike feel weird when setting it up in the parking lot prior to getting on the trails where the performance benefit became more obvious. To this day I still know people who think "modern" bikes are too short in the cockpit based on ETT - and I'm over here riding the new Sentinel (LG) with a 605mm ETT. Even though this is a broad generalization and there's much more to discussing any bike companies design ethos, companies with geo charts like Ibis will appeal to people who want the "roomy" cockpit feel. However, instead of it being due to old slack STA's and long stems, it's now being driven quite a bit by reach to achieve a similar saddle to handlebar length by those searching out roomier bikes that still have more modern STA's, HTA's, etc.
TLDR: I'm not saying that anyone who wants a 500mm reach bike at 6ft tall is wrong (there are tons of body shapes/proportions, terrain types, and definitely personal preferences), but to say that a large frame has to have a 490+ reach or it was basically designed for teenagers isn't exactly accurate either. Thankfully we have choices!
Exactly, which Is why i referenced my own height an not others, i had a cheeky dig at bikes being small with my first comment which...
Exactly, which Is why i referenced my own height an not others, i had a cheeky dig at bikes being small with my first comment which obviously had some effect haha.
I was all about 470-480 reach etc untill i tried a Merida one sixty and it changed my perspective massively, It was nimble but also stable, It turns on its front wheel so well as theres no having to extra weight it.
All the good reviews of it make sense now(i dont really care for reviews online as often influenced by $$$)
Im a big advocator now for bigger bikes and these larges reaches (490-500). but im heavily against the idea of big chainstays, just feel lazy and hangy to me.
Interesting! I spent many years on trail bikes with 435-440mm chainstays. Once I got longer stays (450mm) on a new enduro machine, I found that I really like them for the purpose of stability when going fast in rougher terrain compared to shorter stays. Yes, it influences the handling negatively in other ways, but it felt like it had better balance since I slightly skew to being a rearward centered rider on the descents. I'm also not the most playful or slap-corners-happy rider out there, so I could get past it for the intended use benefits.
I was accidentally given an XL Forbidden Dreadnought V2 to demo (instead of a LG) at Crankworx last year - it had a 500mm reach, and I'd have to double check, but I think the chainstays were 470+ static. That bike was like steering a ship to me for the first lap, but I have never felt more confident descending on a bike in my life. If I lived somewhere that mandated a plow bike or basically a DH bike you could kinda pedal, then maybe I would have got one.
All this said, for the plentiful flow trails around Bend, OR in the summer, I do wish I had a mid travel trail bike with a short rear end to rip around on, but the aggressive XC/"downcountry" bike will have to serve that purpose since I already have too many bikes.
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers. …Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike...
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers.
…Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike completely apart to change it. Having a wireless dropper that you just pop it in the hole like a normal post sounds heavenly in these cases.
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the downtube and then to the lever?
I get what you're saying, and we're never going back to mass adoption of external routing. But it's insanity that electronic droppers are being offered as a solution to a problem the industry created and could so easily solve.
It's like a horror movie when the person being held in a room realizes the door's been unlocked for quite some time and they could have just walked out.
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers. …Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike...
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers.
…Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike completely apart to change it. Having a wireless dropper that you just pop it in the hole like a normal post sounds heavenly in these cases.
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the...
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the downtube and then to the lever?
I get what you're saying, and we're never going back to mass adoption of external routing. But it's insanity that electronic droppers are being offered as a solution to a problem the industry created and could so easily solve.
It's like a horror movie when the person being held in a room realizes the door's been unlocked for quite some time and they could have just walked out.
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers. …Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike...
It sounds like you haven’t changed a lot of cable/housings on droppers.
…Especially on an E bike. Some frames you damn near have to take the bike completely apart to change it. Having a wireless dropper that you just pop it in the hole like a normal post sounds heavenly in these cases.
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the...
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the downtube and then to the lever?
I get what you're saying, and we're never going back to mass adoption of external routing. But it's insanity that electronic droppers are being offered as a solution to a problem the industry created and could so easily solve.
It's like a horror movie when the person being held in a room realizes the door's been unlocked for quite some time and they could have just walked out.
That looks real nice.Any idea on price... If its designed with at home servicing in mind, then hopefully it won't be as expensive as the "pro"...
That looks real nice.
Any idea on price... If its designed with at home servicing in mind, then hopefully it won't be as expensive as the "pro" ones.
it definitely is targeted at home mechanics and those interested in fully servicing their own shocks.
Can't comment on pricing yet, as they're still sorting out manufacturing. But i think it will be way more affordable than the "pro" options out there.
I just got to test out one of their prototype machines and it turned out great. First time for me doing anything more than a lower leg service on my forks and with the service manual on hand and the guide of the machine it was quite enjoyable to work on.
A "piston massage" is an innovation I could get behind. That said, I like the Hope bleeding nipples the best of the bunch, purging air bubbles under pressure always works for me. Two syringes == sorcery.
Interesting! I spent many years on trail bikes with 435-440mm chainstays. Once I got longer stays (450mm) on a new enduro machine, I found that I...
Interesting! I spent many years on trail bikes with 435-440mm chainstays. Once I got longer stays (450mm) on a new enduro machine, I found that I really like them for the purpose of stability when going fast in rougher terrain compared to shorter stays. Yes, it influences the handling negatively in other ways, but it felt like it had better balance since I slightly skew to being a rearward centered rider on the descents. I'm also not the most playful or slap-corners-happy rider out there, so I could get past it for the intended use benefits.
I was accidentally given an XL Forbidden Dreadnought V2 to demo (instead of a LG) at Crankworx last year - it had a 500mm reach, and I'd have to double check, but I think the chainstays were 470+ static. That bike was like steering a ship to me for the first lap, but I have never felt more confident descending on a bike in my life. If I lived somewhere that mandated a plow bike or basically a DH bike you could kinda pedal, then maybe I would have got one.
All this said, for the plentiful flow trails around Bend, OR in the summer, I do wish I had a mid travel trail bike with a short rear end to rip around on, but the aggressive XC/"downcountry" bike will have to serve that purpose since I already have too many bikes.
Back in 2010 or so I had the 2nd gen Magic Link Coilair, and I loved that bike (cracked it, warrantied, cracked again, etc) and to make room for the tricky bits in the suspension it had 460mm chainstays in a size L, back when Speicalized was selling downhill bikes with 420mm chainstays.
Long story short, this is when Strava first came out, and on my local DH 3 min section I was easily faster than on my DH bike, despite having less travel and worse components/tires. I attribute it to mostly those long chainstays, as well as the magic link being a very, very good suspension platform (reactive to hits, supportive in g outs and turns, etc)
Around this time flow trails were also gaining popularity, and man that Kona was so slow on them. I strugged to keep up with friends who I would smoke on the steep & natural stuff.
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks. 150-170mm bikes are used as park bikes and daily drivers, so adjustable chainstays have a clear benefit outside just reducing the cost of having a chainstay mould for each size. If the enduro genre shifts to 140-160mm, that adjustability becomes even more valuable imo.
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks...
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks. 150-170mm bikes are used as park bikes and daily drivers, so adjustable chainstays have a clear benefit outside just reducing the cost of having a chainstay mould for each size. If the enduro genre shifts to 140-160mm, that adjustability becomes even more valuable imo.
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of UDH means no more chainstay adjustments. The only adjustable UDH dropouts I've seen are from small steel hardtail builders.
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of...
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of UDH means no more chainstay adjustments. The only adjustable UDH dropouts I've seen are from small steel hardtail builders.
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay option, if done at the axle, a bit more clunky and it could be a problem with Horst link bikes due to the pivot proximity, but it can be done.
The question is, is it worth it? Do people actually use it?
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of...
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of UDH means no more chainstay adjustments. The only adjustable UDH dropouts I've seen are from small steel hardtail builders.
I think there are others, just not coming to mind right now.
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay lengths. I seem to recall it sounding like the UDH hanger works just fine in both positions but not the direct mount Transmission.
Raaw also has an adjustable dropout if you use their dropout. They offer a UDH dropout but it's not adjustable. I haven't looked closely at Transmission (because I kind of don't care and I kind of don't want to want it; I'm happy with mechanical) so I'm not sure what the limitation is but there seems to be something.
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks...
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks. 150-170mm bikes are used as park bikes and daily drivers, so adjustable chainstays have a clear benefit outside just reducing the cost of having a chainstay mould for each size. If the enduro genre shifts to 140-160mm, that adjustability becomes even more valuable imo.
the problem is, chainstay length effects suspension curve, alot as it increases leverage, The rocky mountain was a good example, it rode like a lazy sheep in long but then was stiff because you had to run the bike stiffer - surely corner balance was better but no racer etc ever ran the actual long setting.
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay...
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay option, if done at the axle, a bit more clunky and it could be a problem with Horst link bikes due to the pivot proximity, but it can be done.
The question is, is it worth it? Do people actually use it?
No. For the general public it's a selling point at purchase and never used after. Most barely know how their suspension works much less what changes will do to it or even notice the changes on the trail.
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks...
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks. 150-170mm bikes are used as park bikes and daily drivers, so adjustable chainstays have a clear benefit outside just reducing the cost of having a chainstay mould for each size. If the enduro genre shifts to 140-160mm, that adjustability becomes even more valuable imo.
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of...
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of UDH means no more chainstay adjustments. The only adjustable UDH dropouts I've seen are from small steel hardtail builders.
Kavenz also uses modular dropouts that retain compatability with UDH. As you alluded to, solutions are out there. Just a matter if those solutions play nice with the brands' industrial design.
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay...
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay lengths. I seem to recall it sounding like the UDH hanger works just fine in both positions but not the direct mount Transmission.
Raaw also has an adjustable dropout if you use their dropout. They offer a UDH dropout but it's not adjustable. I haven't looked closely at Transmission (because I kind of don't care and I kind of don't want to want it; I'm happy with mechanical) so I'm not sure what the limitation is but there seems to be something.
One more win for mechanical drivetrains, guess!
I believe Transmission's effectiveness is partially dictated by having the exact right # of links in the chain. They have an app where you put in your make/model/year/frame size/chainring size and it spits out how many links you need. I'd wager to guess that Sram probably discouraged frame manufacturers from adjustable chainstays when they were selling them on UDH because it could potentially cause less-than-desirable shifting performance if the user didn't have the correct number of links because of chainstay length adjustment. Which would then make the user think that their Transmission sucks.
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay...
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay lengths. I seem to recall it sounding like the UDH hanger works just fine in both positions but not the direct mount Transmission.
Raaw also has an adjustable dropout if you use their dropout. They offer a UDH dropout but it's not adjustable. I haven't looked closely at Transmission (because I kind of don't care and I kind of don't want to want it; I'm happy with mechanical) so I'm not sure what the limitation is but there seems to be something.
I believe Transmission's effectiveness is partially dictated by having the exact right # of links in the chain. They have an app where you put in...
I believe Transmission's effectiveness is partially dictated by having the exact right # of links in the chain. They have an app where you put in your make/model/year/frame size/chainring size and it spits out how many links you need. I'd wager to guess that Sram probably discouraged frame manufacturers from adjustable chainstays when they were selling them on UDH because it could potentially cause less-than-desirable shifting performance if the user didn't have the correct number of links because of chainstay length adjustment. Which would then make the user think that their Transmission sucks.
Just a hunch.
I expect it would simply be a setting in the app. Similar for when you change a chainring size on a transmission bike you're supposed to re-setup your derailleur with the app.
I expect it would simply be a setting in the app. Similar for when you change a chainring size on a transmission bike you're supposed to...
I expect it would simply be a setting in the app. Similar for when you change a chainring size on a transmission bike you're supposed to re-setup your derailleur with the app.
I agree, But if the app told them they needed a longer chain because they changed the chainstay length, how many people would actually drop the $$$ for a new chain? Or re-stup their drive-train with the app in the parking lot before hitting the trail? Most people would probably just "run it." Then bitch to all their friends how much Transmission sucks.
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay...
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay option, if done at the axle, a bit more clunky and it could be a problem with Horst link bikes due to the pivot proximity, but it can be done.
The question is, is it worth it? Do people actually use it?
My new dh frame has adjustable chain stay length and an adjustable lower shock mount for adjusting frame progression. Once things warm up I’m looking forward to trying short and long in both progression settings. I’m assuming I’ll like short with progressive, but I will definitely try all 4.
Not really, brands are just making bikes to fit adults now instead of 13-15 year olds.
at 6ft, anything less than 490ish reach and the bikes are just to small...(115-130ht, 635-650 stack eta)
trails have evolved so much, especially since 29'ers became a thing it's time to ride bikes that are big enough without letting this stupid chainstay length thing get to long.
I recommend some type of "piston massage" process on any hydraulic brake - will be slightly different for 2-pot vs 4-pot and mineral vs DOT but its good practice and I've used it on all kinds of brands over the years
Make sure you torque the barb/olive to correct torque and dont use the sram bleed kit. the bit that goes into the lever leaks air.
I've installed probably 30 pairs of mavens and I've not had one come back with issues.
p.s make sure you piston masage with HARD lever pulls and BEFORE!!!!! bleeding, Also Rotate the bike upwards with rear caliper basically vertical.
I pull vaccum at the caliper end with lever shut off.
I often get asked how to make the brake less powerful....
Nothing wrong with mavens, just the installers.
This made a huge difference on my Codes.
I really hate to derail this conversation but I must talk about those maven cups. I've always been a fan of the Shimano overnight cup bleed rubber band thing and I thought these cups would help me do the same things to my mavens.
Needless to say, it did not work, in fact it made my mavens feel terrible. So I've never used them again and suck with syringes. I think having a bit of positive pressure in the system and "overfilling" it a bit by pushing a little bit of oil from the caliper up with the bleed port on the lever closed makes them feel the best.
Though I'd be really interested in your thoughts.
I replied to this in the brake thread but forgot who wrote it and was to lazy to come back and check so I could tag you
Personally, I find their sizing wonky - new Oso, Ripley, and Ripmo included (read the full post and I'll also explain why their geo might make sense too). While obviously some people who always ride large frames will continue to order the size they normally do without looking at the numbers, I'd wager plenty of people who test ride are sizing down - at least as far as labeled size goes. I looked into the new Ripmo as I searched for a long travel trail bike, but between a long reach (by labeled size) and the not-so-super-steep seat tube angle, it had an effective top tube measurement that I would never be able to work with if I were to go with the large frame, and even the extra medium was on the longer ETT side for me. There were other geo quibbles I had, but the reach is what is being discussed here.
For reference, I'm 6'1" tall, have a 770mm BB to rails saddle height, and prefer my ETT's in the 610mm ballpark, give or take 5mm. I've found that after quite a bit of time riding bikes with a 470-475mm reaches, I prefer my trail bikes between 480-485mm these days paired with a shorter 40mm stem. Because of my fairly tall saddle height on a large frame, the actual seat tube angle matters to me as it directly influences how centered I am on the bike. I also find myself feeling less efficient while pedaling with slacker seat tube bikes, as I like the feeling and efficiency of not having my feet too far in front of me while pedaling. We're talking about fairly minute differences compared to 10 year old bikes, but as geo changes less and less rapidly/significantly, I've really found where my sweet spot lies. I'll get off my soap box now, as these are just my personal preferences.
However, I'll contradict myself for the benefit of Ibis as well. I worked for a manufacturer for a number of years that was on the pioneering side of steeper seat tube angles. I swear, every day for a couple of years (and then occasionally for the next few years I worked there) people complained about or asked why the cockpit of the bike felt so "tight" riding around the parking lot, or mentioned the weight on their hands when riding on flat asphalt. The reaches were fairly current, and the steeper seat tube and 50mm stems were designed to help with technical and/or steeper climbing by keeping the rider centered. However, as a "new trend" it made the bike feel weird when setting it up in the parking lot prior to getting on the trails where the performance benefit became more obvious. To this day I still know people who think "modern" bikes are too short in the cockpit based on ETT - and I'm over here riding the new Sentinel (LG) with a 605mm ETT. Even though this is a broad generalization and there's much more to discussing any bike companies design ethos, companies with geo charts like Ibis will appeal to people who want the "roomy" cockpit feel. However, instead of it being due to old slack STA's and long stems, it's now being driven quite a bit by reach to achieve a similar saddle to handlebar length by those searching out roomier bikes that still have more modern STA's, HTA's, etc.
TLDR: I'm not saying that anyone who wants a 500mm reach bike at 6ft tall is wrong (there are tons of body shapes/proportions, terrain types, and definitely personal preferences), but to say that a large frame has to have a 490+ reach or it was basically designed for teenagers isn't exactly accurate either. Thankfully we have choices!
Exactly, which Is why i referenced my own height an not others, i had a cheeky dig at bikes being small with my first comment which obviously had some effect haha.
I was all about 470-480 reach etc untill i tried a Merida one sixty and it changed my perspective massively, It was nimble but also stable, It turns on its front wheel so well as theres no having to extra weight it.
All the good reviews of it make sense now(i dont really care for reviews online as often influenced by $$$)
Im a big advocator now for bigger bikes and these larges reaches (490-500).
but im heavily against the idea of big chainstays, just feel lazy and hangy to me.
Interesting! I spent many years on trail bikes with 435-440mm chainstays. Once I got longer stays (450mm) on a new enduro machine, I found that I really like them for the purpose of stability when going fast in rougher terrain compared to shorter stays. Yes, it influences the handling negatively in other ways, but it felt like it had better balance since I slightly skew to being a rearward centered rider on the descents. I'm also not the most playful or slap-corners-happy rider out there, so I could get past it for the intended use benefits.
I was accidentally given an XL Forbidden Dreadnought V2 to demo (instead of a LG) at Crankworx last year - it had a 500mm reach, and I'd have to double check, but I think the chainstays were 470+ static. That bike was like steering a ship to me for the first lap, but I have never felt more confident descending on a bike in my life. If I lived somewhere that mandated a plow bike or basically a DH bike you could kinda pedal, then maybe I would have got one.
All this said, for the plentiful flow trails around Bend, OR in the summer, I do wish I had a mid travel trail bike with a short rear end to rip around on, but the aggressive XC/"downcountry" bike will have to serve that purpose since I already have too many bikes.
This is crazy, but hear me out. What if the housing came out the bottom of the seat tube and ran along the outside of the downtube and then to the lever?
I get what you're saying, and we're never going back to mass adoption of external routing. But it's insanity that electronic droppers are being offered as a solution to a problem the industry created and could so easily solve.
It's like a horror movie when the person being held in a room realizes the door's been unlocked for quite some time and they could have just walked out.
Extinguish the heretics. Purge them
https://newatlas.com/bicycles/intradrive-combined-motor-gearbox/
Have we talked about this?
I've been meaning to bring them up for ages too
it definitely is targeted at home mechanics and those interested in fully servicing their own shocks.
Can't comment on pricing yet, as they're still sorting out manufacturing. But i think it will be way more affordable than the "pro" options out there.
I just got to test out one of their prototype machines and it turned out great. First time for me doing anything more than a lower leg service on my forks and with the service manual on hand and the guide of the machine it was quite enjoyable to work on.
are there already any brands known who are going to use this motor?
A "piston massage" is an innovation I could get behind. That said, I like the Hope bleeding nipples the best of the bunch, purging air bubbles under pressure always works for me. Two syringes == sorcery.
Back in 2010 or so I had the 2nd gen Magic Link Coilair, and I loved that bike (cracked it, warrantied, cracked again, etc) and to make room for the tricky bits in the suspension it had 460mm chainstays in a size L, back when Speicalized was selling downhill bikes with 420mm chainstays.
Long story short, this is when Strava first came out, and on my local DH 3 min section I was easily faster than on my DH bike, despite having less travel and worse components/tires. I attribute it to mostly those long chainstays, as well as the magic link being a very, very good suspension platform (reactive to hits, supportive in g outs and turns, etc)
Around this time flow trails were also gaining popularity, and man that Kona was so slow on them. I strugged to keep up with friends who I would smoke on the steep & natural stuff.
Wish frame companies would develop reliable adjustable dropouts/chainstay length instead of figuring out how to poke less holes in their frames to save a few bucks. 150-170mm bikes are used as park bikes and daily drivers, so adjustable chainstays have a clear benefit outside just reducing the cost of having a chainstay mould for each size. If the enduro genre shifts to 140-160mm, that adjustability becomes even more valuable imo.
I hate to be the bearer of bad new, but you are going to see less and less adjustable chainstays moving forward. The wide adoption of UDH means no more chainstay adjustments. The only adjustable UDH dropouts I've seen are from small steel hardtail builders.
Rocky did one... https://bikes.com/products/instinct-c70-axs-24
I think there are others, just not coming to mind right now.
If you did the dropouts the way Banshee does it, it shouldn't be too hard even with UDH... UDH by itself will make the adjustable chainstay option, if done at the axle, a bit more clunky and it could be a problem with Horst link bikes due to the pivot proximity, but it can be done.
The question is, is it worth it? Do people actually use it?
Don't quote me on this...but I think the Pinky Field Test mentioned that Transmission itself can only be used on the longer of the two chainstay lengths. I seem to recall it sounding like the UDH hanger works just fine in both positions but not the direct mount Transmission.
Raaw also has an adjustable dropout if you use their dropout. They offer a UDH dropout but it's not adjustable. I haven't looked closely at Transmission (because I kind of don't care and I kind of don't want to want it; I'm happy with mechanical) so I'm not sure what the limitation is but there seems to be something.
One more win for mechanical drivetrains, guess!
the problem is, chainstay length effects suspension curve, alot as it increases leverage, The rocky mountain was a good example, it rode like a lazy sheep in long but then was stiff because you had to run the bike stiffer - surely corner balance was better but no racer etc ever ran the actual long setting.
No. For the general public it's a selling point at purchase and never used after. Most barely know how their suspension works much less what changes will do to it or even notice the changes on the trail.
Kavenz also uses modular dropouts that retain compatability with UDH. As you alluded to, solutions are out there. Just a matter if those solutions play nice with the brands' industrial design.
I believe Transmission's effectiveness is partially dictated by having the exact right # of links in the chain. They have an app where you put in your make/model/year/frame size/chainring size and it spits out how many links you need. I'd wager to guess that Sram probably discouraged frame manufacturers from adjustable chainstays when they were selling them on UDH because it could potentially cause less-than-desirable shifting performance if the user didn't have the correct number of links because of chainstay length adjustment. Which would then make the user think that their Transmission sucks.
Just a hunch.
I expect it would simply be a setting in the app. Similar for when you change a chainring size on a transmission bike you're supposed to re-setup your derailleur with the app.
I agree, But if the app told them they needed a longer chain because they changed the chainstay length, how many people would actually drop the $$$ for a new chain? Or re-stup their drive-train with the app in the parking lot before hitting the trail? Most people would probably just "run it." Then bitch to all their friends how much Transmission sucks.
My new dh frame has adjustable chain stay length and an adjustable lower shock mount for adjusting frame progression. Once things warm up I’m looking forward to trying short and long in both progression settings. I’m assuming I’ll like short with progressive, but I will definitely try all 4.