Much love! I'm just stoked to be part of a brand (Vital) that I grew up being such a fan of. We might be small, but I love what we stand for and everyone out there who connects with it.
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years champion struggles to qualify, a guy wins one week, DNQ the next.. The names that didn't make the show... Dak overcomes early season issues to a 5th place qualifying run... And those are all before the finals start.. Maybe those stories are not being told in a proper way.. If at all? DH qualifying is about as predictable as the 250 class right now..
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years...
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years champion struggles to qualify, a guy wins one week, DNQ the next.. The names that didn't make the show... Dak overcomes early season issues to a 5th place qualifying run... And those are all before the finals start.. Maybe those stories are not being told in a proper way.. If at all? DH qualifying is about as predictable as the 250 class right now..
Fair points. Def a lot of stories to grab onto each weekend. Maybe too many? Or maybe some stories that don’t build the overall narrative well? Like is Luca winning and then not making finals at back to back races a good or a bad story, or a sign that the format has some holes in it? I can see arguments for either case.
I’m all for some drama and inconsistency to keep it interesting. I do feel like the current format has me all confused on how I feel about it because it can be a lot to digest before we even go racing.
On the gearbox e-bike topic : one of the larger (not largest) target demographics for e-bikes in general is Dirtbikers and motorcyclist that enjoy expanded access over there traditionally i.c.e. powered two wheelers: these fine folks despise external derailleur drivetrains on three principles : weakness, wear and wear costs, and related maintenance.
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years...
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years champion struggles to qualify, a guy wins one week, DNQ the next.. The names that didn't make the show... Dak overcomes early season issues to a 5th place qualifying run... And those are all before the finals start.. Maybe those stories are not being told in a proper way.. If at all? DH qualifying is about as predictable as the 250 class right now..
Fair points. Def a lot of stories to grab onto each weekend. Maybe too many? Or maybe some stories that don’t build the overall narrative well...
Fair points. Def a lot of stories to grab onto each weekend. Maybe too many? Or maybe some stories that don’t build the overall narrative well? Like is Luca winning and then not making finals at back to back races a good or a bad story, or a sign that the format has some holes in it? I can see arguments for either case.
I’m all for some drama and inconsistency to keep it interesting. I do feel like the current format has me all confused on how I feel about it because it can be a lot to digest before we even go racing.
You could be right on too many points, but the broadcast can condense them a bit.. The US series does a good job of giving a couple of key stories at the start of the broadcast..
Id rather see the craziness in qualifying than a bunch of people with guaranteed spot just racing for a start time.
I have a possible podcast topic I would like to bring up...
I'm curious about the metrics of suspension quality. When we talk about the quality of suspension on a mountain bike, what are the metrics that we are using to determine that? In the end, is speed the determining factor? How does comfort factor in to the equation? What about capability / what get's absorbed rather than transferred to the rider? IF these are opposing, how does a suspension company determine what to put at the top of the list?
How does the industry reconcile the fact that most mountain bikers probably don't need the suspension products that make you the fastest. Or that most mountain bikers probably don't set their suspension up correctly (I'm looking at you for this one, Lars), or maintain their equipment at the recommended service intervals?
Also, bonus points if you can get Chris Canfield on the podcast to talk about suspension, especially his belief that you should be bottoming out your suspension during every run. I feel like he's a little to honest for his own good, which I think would fit right in on the podcast.
Side note / follow up: Should we be less concerned with bottoming out our suspension with the rise of hydraulic bottom outs? It doesn't feel like we get the same harsh shot through the spine that we used to...
LASTLY
With the rise of adjustable platforms, flip chips and the like, do we think we will ever see things like the dual position air, or the u-turn air springs again? Did these technologies just not function? Where they just a nightmare to service? It seems like now more than ever being able to adjust your fork's travel would be pretty welcome.
U turn or DPA specifically was a bandaid to make bad bikes climb better. Bikes are now good as they are.
I had a dual position air on a 15 Giant Reign and basically never used it. That was after years of using a coil Uturn Pike on the previous bike. And the Giant still wasn't a good bike by today's standards.
Much love! I'm just stoked to be part of a brand (Vital) that I grew up being such a fan of. We might be small, but I love what we stand for and everyone out there who connects with it.
Jason, I do have to argue a point that came up on the B Practice podcast.. The current race format definitely creates good stories.. Last years champion struggles to qualify, a guy wins one week, DNQ the next.. The names that didn't make the show... Dak overcomes early season issues to a 5th place qualifying run... And those are all before the finals start.. Maybe those stories are not being told in a proper way.. If at all? DH qualifying is about as predictable as the 250 class right now..
Being honest?
Love j shredd, Lars & bars and the lord spom, all together.
It’s a good pod ,
Fair points. Def a lot of stories to grab onto each weekend. Maybe too many? Or maybe some stories that don’t build the overall narrative well? Like is Luca winning and then not making finals at back to back races a good or a bad story, or a sign that the format has some holes in it? I can see arguments for either case.
I’m all for some drama and inconsistency to keep it interesting. I do feel like the current format has me all confused on how I feel about it because it can be a lot to digest before we even go racing.
On the gearbox e-bike topic : one of the larger (not largest) target demographics for e-bikes in general is Dirtbikers and motorcyclist that enjoy expanded access over there traditionally i.c.e. powered two wheelers: these fine folks despise external derailleur drivetrains on three principles : weakness, wear and wear costs, and related maintenance.
It’s just one point on the venn diagram
You could be right on too many points, but the broadcast can condense them a bit.. The US series does a good job of giving a couple of key stories at the start of the broadcast..
Id rather see the craziness in qualifying than a bunch of people with guaranteed spot just racing for a start time.
I have a possible podcast topic I would like to bring up...
I'm curious about the metrics of suspension quality. When we talk about the quality of suspension on a mountain bike, what are the metrics that we are using to determine that? In the end, is speed the determining factor? How does comfort factor in to the equation? What about capability / what get's absorbed rather than transferred to the rider? IF these are opposing, how does a suspension company determine what to put at the top of the list?
How does the industry reconcile the fact that most mountain bikers probably don't need the suspension products that make you the fastest. Or that most mountain bikers probably don't set their suspension up correctly (I'm looking at you for this one, Lars), or maintain their equipment at the recommended service intervals?
Also, bonus points if you can get Chris Canfield on the podcast to talk about suspension, especially his belief that you should be bottoming out your suspension during every run. I feel like he's a little to honest for his own good, which I think would fit right in on the podcast.
Side note / follow up: Should we be less concerned with bottoming out our suspension with the rise of hydraulic bottom outs? It doesn't feel like we get the same harsh shot through the spine that we used to...
LASTLY
With the rise of adjustable platforms, flip chips and the like, do we think we will ever see things like the dual position air, or the u-turn air springs again? Did these technologies just not function? Where they just a nightmare to service? It seems like now more than ever being able to adjust your fork's travel would be pretty welcome.
U turn or DPA specifically was a bandaid to make bad bikes climb better. Bikes are now good as they are.
I had a dual position air on a 15 Giant Reign and basically never used it. That was after years of using a coil Uturn Pike on the previous bike. And the Giant still wasn't a good bike by today's standards.
Maybe not the right podcast, but Dak's backyard visit from Carson Brown is live!
Post a reply to: Vital’s Bikes: Unaffiliated Podcast - Community Conversation