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
It's just a more visible light connected to Flight Attendant so the athletes can tell what setting they are in more easily. First ones were actually too bright and this version could be more muted.
you know you can just download the pictures in the trek b2b website, right?
Hopefully new analog treck fuel x gets long Chainstays as will.
Geo looks very nice, except 485 mm reach is too long for my preference
Could it be a steering angle sensor or electronic rotary damper? Either could be useful for the flight attendant algorithm.
Isn't it just a bigger led for flight attendant, so that they know whether it's soft or firm for when they use override mode?
hopefully it doesnt.
This is getting down voted, and maybe it's controversial, but I kind of agree with it. I don't think a trail bike necessarily needs long chainstays or a head angle below 64⁰. That's what your all mountain or enduro bike is for. It's not like conservative geo on bikes is dangerous or un-rideable.
i still fail to see the issue, like every single biker had wheelsets they keep swapping around for fun like lego blocks
If you buy a good set of carbon wheels with lifetime warranty you do typically hold onto them over multiple bikes.. it’s what makes them cost effective.
You must never ever place a lego block not according to the instructions 😳
I've got a Fugitive with 5500 miles on it... great bike. No reason for it to be Superboost, but it obviously wasn't a deal breaker for me when I bought it.
Now I've got my super boosted Knolly, my boosted Stooge, my Moonlander with a 197, and a cargo bike with a good old 135. I recently sold my Chamois Hagar with a 142 rear end. 5 bikes with 5 rear hub standards. Some justified, some not.
Need moon lander pics
Paying for a re dish and some problem solvers is not the end of the world, but I do understand, worst thing it’s a new rear hub and some spokes
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I usually buy frames and swap parts over as I like all my parts. Superboost wouldn’t be a full on dealbreaker for me, but it makes it more of a hassle than it needs to be. It seems like an all-downside situation to me, so why do it
Only mad dogs and Englishmen would tear apart a perfectly good rear wheel to re-use only the rim.
Here’s an interesting factoid/hot take. A very proficient mechanic friend of mine runs Superboost hubs on all his standard boost bikes. Specifically Norcos. The wheel just pops right in there.
I would never do this, and I constantly raise an eyebrow at his set up. He’s been doing it for years and hasn’t noticed any ill side effects. Every drivetrain he’s used, including Transmission hasn’t reared any ugly shifting side effects, nor has he noticed any premature bearing wear or binding issues.
He prefers Superboost because to him, it builds a stronger wheel. He would have never tried it, except he was coming off a Devinci and didn’t want to build a new rear wheel.
Crazy right?
I've run a boost hub in a non boost frame by just jamming it in there and buying a new thru axle. It worked great until the chainstay cracked. It worked long enough that I got what I wanted from the frame and then some, so no regrets, but i absolutely wouldn't recommend it. I think it lasted about a season before the crack was halfway around the inside of the chainstay where it was welded to the yoke.
I'd do it again, but only if it was another frame I didn't care about, and if it was a carbon rear end with a short-link suspension design so there is no cyclic internal stress from any misaligned pivots. Might make it OK. Probably not super boost though, that's a big increase in width.
I typed quads, meant glutes. That's what I get for trying to quickly post at work
Mooooooom they're talking about chainstay length in the tech romours thread again!
The bunched up ball isn't the strongest power position, it's weak core giving out and you still pushing with the hamstrings that makes it feel like it's a power position. It's a closed off hip angle.
A more open hip angle and upright position allows for more power. Modern TT positions are placing the hands up higher to get this better hip angle so they can put in more power but still hit the same aero drag.
If you were to set up a set of aero bars up high at the ideal hip angle and lean forward on those (removes the need to rely on the core muscles) you will put out more power than the low forward position leaning on aero bars.
Sprinters nor powerlifters do their job in fully upright position or with open hip angle, being upright means low glute activation and low glute activation means low overall power production. Obviously there is other end of that scale when you are kneeing yourself in the stomach but I don't think even the craziest xc setups would be doing that. Power leaks though relaxed core is not that relevant here I would say, fighters for example can keep the core tight in flexed position no problem, on the other hand some athletes are struggling to keep it tight even in very upright position. In one of sleeper co edits this year there is a women starting from the gate and the amount of side bend in her torso is painful to watch. So much power wasted. I will try to find it just for the fun of it.
i love riding mtb in a tt position, which is ideal for flat roads not for climbing and descending hills. there's a reason they swap back out to road bike for climbing tts. I understand your point, but its irrelevant for mtb.
Not talking about fully upright. This is more like a hoods vs drops positioning. Look at the seated climbing position of a tour pro on steep grades, here aero is not a factor and it's all about putting out efficient power, they won't be hunched over in the drops, they will be sitting up taller and on the hoods. Back to Robot's comment about "balled over" position in XC with the lowest stack possible isn't the power position.
Any bike I have owned if I accentuated my body position I could get more out of it on the climbs. I’m sure for the average xc rider if you are putting yourself in that position naturally then that’s the golden ticket. For me a lot of that always came from pushing down and in on the handlebars. I’d imagine tilting your entire body to do the pushing down part naturally is a huge relief on the hands and forearms. I get my hands as jacked by putting an extended effort on a climb as any downhill.
Only on vital can I start my day with a coffee and a debate about glute activation.
Back to 32 inch wheels and growths on Zeb lowers please.
Evil said they had "a preview of things to come" at the Northwest Tuneup event this past weekend. Anybody get a glance at new bikes/frames?
You've made some accurate but incredibly nuanced observations about the finer points of road bike fit, but I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that any competition road bike or XC bike is inherently "balled up" and "hunched over" compared to an Enduro bike or really most bicycles on the planet. Hoods = hunched over. Drops = hunched over. Pros riding the top of the bar with their jerseys unzipped climbing Alp d'Huez = still hunched over compared to how ~90% of the people in the world ride their bikes.
Pro road and XC racers adopt that hunched over/balled up position I'm talking about because it's powerful and metabolically efficient for high intensity efforts. 90% of the world's cyclists don't adopt that position because it's uncomfortable at lower intensities. That's what I was saying. And yes, of course it's possible to be too hunched over or balled up. No argument.
To bring this back to tech rumors, I'm assuming that world class XC racers have already navigated all of the little physiological nuances you mentioned to arrive at their current bike fit, and I'd be surprised if any of them would be willing to significantly compromise the power and efficiency of their ideal bike fit for the benefit of bigger wheels. I just don't see 32" wheels happening for anyone who isn't very tall. But I've been wrong before. All the short XC racers are currently on 29ers, so maybe I'm wrong and the tradeoff is worth it.