Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 10/16/2018 7:40 AM

Can you also please not quote the picture a million times? Thanks...

Added a comment about video Previously Classified Super Magnesium Now Ready for MTB 10/12/2018 2:50 AM
C138x104

Those are probably just high magnesium content aluminum alloy frames. You don't do straight magnesium. As to why label it "magnesium", ask marketing...

0 0 0

This video has 7 comments.

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/11/2018 1:37 PM
C50

jive turkey which ones? I'm genuinely interested in how they look then.

0 0 0

This feature has 27 comments.

Added reply in a thread The Patent Thread - New and Wild Mountain Bike Inventions 10/10/2018 9:36 PM

Also, suspension locking based on the pedalling cadence and torque.

Added reply in a thread The Patent Thread - New and Wild Mountain Bike Inventions 10/10/2018 9:34 PM

It's an ordinary flat mount caliper, which is very common in road bikes with disc brakes. Wouldn't be surprised of mountainbikes get them at some point as well, mainly due to the thread location. PVD has been designing different mounts for different ... more »

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/10/2018 11:35 AM
C50

Please read my posts here. Or on many other sites. I want to burn offset, slack and bent seattubes with a flamethrower. I'll be buying an XL Bird Aeris because it is the only relatively affordable bike with a normal seat tube (not bent) and seat angle (76 virtual, 74 actual for the 27" model). Otherwise all the options on the whole MTB market, currently, are a Nicolai Geometron/Ion GPI, a Pole (Machine) or a Raaw Madonna. All these bikes have one thing in common - steep seat tubes, the actual angles, and long front centres. And a crazy pricetag.

I HATE being over the rear axle, sitting down, hate it from the bottom of my heart. And i am fully aware that a steep (nay, PROPER!) seat tube angle will mean a longer front triangle. Because the cockpit length needs to be correct, which means an 'insanely long reach'. Which is exactly why the reach number is such a god damn useless number. It's kinda like saying what axle to crown fork you have, without looking at the wheel size and travel you'll use. Sure, you can find the right ATC for your needs, but will it actually fit?

As for the pedals/feet weighing the front, no i am no underestimating it.And i am also talking about being active on the bike when i talk about loading the front or the rear. You don't press on the pedals to push the front wheel into a hole, you do it with your arms. And the opposite for the rear. Same goes for cycling the suspension (say after cleaning or the like), jumping on the pedals does little for the fork, pressing on the bars does little for the rear shock.

As for weight distribution, i threw up a geometry with a 78° seat tube angle and something around 1280 in the wheelbase, where the front was weighted more than on my Large Reign (2015 model) with a much shorter wheelbase. Due to the slacker seat tube angle and more weight being over the rear. I also have my proportions and body part weights entered so i can plot out the supposed CoG of my body in there (i have a script written up in Matlab for that, so i don't need bikecad).

I went with the large because the XL seemed a bit long (i was on a large, due to a recommendation in the shop, for 7 years before that as well) and because the model i have wasn't available in XL. But it's too short. Way too short.

I do fully blame industrial designers and the bike industry as a whole, because the suspension designs are a copy and paste between the sizes. I mentioned in one of the comments in this thread that a given frame should be COMPLETELY different between the sizes. The seat angle, the chainstay length, the pivot placement, everything should be adapted. I mean do you see different length skis have the same radius? Or different snowboard lengths have the same width?

(also, don't get me started on shorts inseam lengths, that never fit me. I'm the defacto model for a thigh gap, even with a 15 inch inseam short)

+1 1 0

Members who like this comment

This feature has 27 comments.

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/10/2018 11:22 AM
C50

Okay, maybe i was a bit optimistic with the 75 %. 85 % would be more appropriate. The ride i did yesterday was 1:10 long and had a less than a 10 minute descent with pauses in it to check the trail, since some fallen trees have to be cleared out. And i had some pauses on the uphill and the top as well. The hill i was on takes less than three minutes to get down from on another, faster trail. The loop, no pauses, could be done in just about under an hour. All of the transfer and the uphill was done sitting down.

And no, this is not an extreme case for where i ride.

0 0 0

This feature has 27 comments.

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/10/2018 10:38 AM
C50

Of course it is about the hands and feet in relation to the axles. The main effect of pushing on the pedals goes to the rear axle (simple lever relation), while the same can be said for hands and the front axle - pushing down on the handlebars does little for grip in the rear.

Yeah, what you do on the pedals has an effect on the front too, but still, hands influence the front and feet influence the rear wheel.

Never mind the ETT and reach numbers comparison, thought it over and the ETT numbers should rise faster than the reach numbers in any case, since reach is measured against the vertical from the BB (edited this part).

+1 1 0

Members who like this comment

This feature has 27 comments.

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/10/2018 10:30 AM
C50

And as such reach is a useless number for any bike up to and including enduro category - any bike that gets pedalled sitting down for over 75 % of the ride.

Also, reach to chainstay ratio is not the only thing determining the weight distribution, as mention, but i'm taking it to another direction. Yeah, the fork angle and the like does have an effect, but reach to CS ratio would be useful only for a given cockpit length, where you in effect move the seat forwards and backwards when changing the reach, in effect changing the effective seat tube angle. But you can get a steep seat tube angle, a short cockpit length and keep the reach and chainstay at the same number. That will nevertheless move the CoG of the rider slightly forwards and also upwards (because he will be more upright due to a too short cockpit), which then also affects the antisquat numbers.

Everything is very connected.

-1 1 2

This feature has 27 comments.

Liked a comment on the item Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/9/2018 9:53 PM

Proportional response optimized pivot placement. These guys must have taken that 2019 Carbon Patrol press camp video too seriously. Speaking of proportional, why so long in the seat tube for the given sizes?

And even for taller people that can deal with the seat tube length...there's the angle,...more

Added reply in a thread The Patent Thread - New and Wild Mountain Bike Inventions 10/9/2018 9:52 PM

They learn to write like that by applying for many patents. If you are too exact with your patent application, it's easy for other to get around it, just change a detail. Say you write 'is bolted to something' in the patent application, and someone else ... more »

Added a comment about feature Vital Rides the All-New Cannondale Habit 10/9/2018 2:01 PM
C50

Personally i don't mind the chainstays staying the same, it's like saying you need a slacker headangle if you're taller. Having your feet about the same distance from the rear axle makes sense to me if you have your arms at about the same distance from the front axle over the sizer.

My gripe is with the damn bent seat tube, putting L and XL riders over the rear axle. A longer chainstay is a bandaid fix here, since the actual seat tube angle drops to around 70° in that case, the suspension squats too much, etc.

THe more i think about everything, the more clear it becomes to me, that each frame size should be completely different to the other sizes for a given frame model. This includes the geometry numbers (effective seat angles and the like) AND the suspension layout. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that larger riders will have less antisquat than smaller riders, when the 100 % anti squat value is connected to the CoG height...

EDIT: the way Norco make 'size specific frames', at least the way i understand it, is down right idiotic. They make the chainstay longer by moving the BB forward. Which makes the seat tube angle even slacker on larger sizes. Which exactly the opposite of what you want. You can make a bike with a 420 mm chainstay that has a better (more balanced) weight distribution compared to many modern bikes with bent seat tubes, when you're talking about L and XL frames. Because you use a steep seat tube angle, move the rider forwards and weight the front wheel more. Simple.

+1 1 0

Members who like this comment

This feature has 27 comments.

Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 10/9/2018 1:53 PM

Taking the bent seat tube to the next level. Why oh why??

Added a comment about photo Martin Maes is Fit 10/2/2018 5:55 AM
C138_ewsfinale18_o5a3982

That's what I figured. But as a guy at 190 cm (on, admittedly, a Large frame) with a slack actual seat tube, i know the pain of a slack effective seat angle. It's not as much about the fit and pain in the knees as it is about being in a weird position with the legs kind of in front of you, the COG being very rearwards over the rear axle, the bike squatting in the uphills, etc.

I'm on the first gen 27.5 Reign and am looking to switch up to something that has a much steeper effective seat angle (can't decide between the 27 or 29 inch Bird Aeris currently).

0 0 0

This photo has 5 comments.

Added a comment about photo Martin Maes is Fit 10/2/2018 1:26 AM
C138_ewsfinale18_o5a3982

With a 65 degree actual seat tube angle its hard to be too far forward when you're above 800 mm of seat height...

0 0 0

This photo has 5 comments.

Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 10/1/2018 9:46 PM

Most people thank their sponsors when they leave them for another company as well...

Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 10/1/2018 2:15 PM

Yup, RM have the Instinct, which is 160/155 in the BC guise. Sure, the Slayer is 27,5 only, but they never raced the Slayer even before they got on the 29ers, they were on Altitudes before that. Also, can't really see them demanding a 29er Slayer?

Added a comment about photo Martin Maes is Fit 10/1/2018 11:17 AM
C138_ewsfinale18_o5a3982

Typical tall dude slack seat tube problems... Seat slammed all the way forward -_-

0 0 0

This photo has 5 comments.

Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 10/1/2018 8:07 AM

The Strive is a very old platform, Barel tested the prototypes during the 2014 EWS season and the bike then debuted in 2015. The first 27,5 inch Reign also came out in 2015 and was refreshed this year. Geometry wise, the old Reign was even more aggressive ... more »

Added reply in a thread 2019 Racing Rumors 9/30/2018 10:15 PM

Good point. And the strive is very long in the tooth. The torque is a park or freeride machine, the Spectral is a trail bike with the strive being a clear enduro machine. I am fully expecting a new one for next year given last years refreshes of the ... more »