Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 366
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Probably not the rabbit hole we want to go down on this thread, but I got wife a Levo, then an FSR, a couple years ago and it made if possible for her to ride with me; we had tandems before that and it was just too hard.

    I just sprung for a Pivot Shuttle, 25% off, all I can say is WoW! The Shuttle is so much more than the Levo, rides like a real bike, feels like a real bike, based on the Pivot Mach 5.5.

    Anyways, don't go cheap on your wife

    Quote Originally Posted by cjsb View Post
    Informative post—thanks! I have not attended an Inter-Biker or Outer-Bike , or similar event, so very helpful to hear about the challenges being able to ride THE bike that one has targeted.

    Agree that MTBikes have never been better. I hear a lot of claims that a 150-160mm travel 29er can climb as well as the 3-4”versions from several years ago. That is amazing—no point in settling (not referring to serious racing bikes though). However, I still enjoy a HT, if for nothing else as a low maintenance muck bike, especially if set up SS, still a niche not a genre.

    Another example of the improvement in bikes, at least for me recently was being able to test ride anEMTBike on my favorite trail. I am riding this thing and pushing it as hard as I can physically and thinking that this bike’s effective limits (including rider) are maybe an order of magnitude greater than what I am riding? Not to derail this thread, but if anything I’ll get my wife one so she is more likely to get out there if she can ride circles around me.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,283
    Right on! Especially on supporting the wife. Earlier this year I build a carbon tallboy for my wife that I received on warranty from SC. If I had to buy everything brand new, including frame it would have almost doubled the cost of the Endorphin I built for myself last year. is her first S bike and she loves it.

    I saw extensive video group ride of the Pivot eShuttles that a guy in Utah posted. Looks like an amazing bike, it’s definitely the eBike that I’d love to get.

    Back on the regular topic, I forgot to add that I had similar experience as OP regarding neck problems with my Endo. That “aggressive” style is okay everywhere but my neck, and least for my history with bikes, the Endo. Has a very short head tube and stack height. I ended up with the maximum 30mm spacers under the stem and a high riser bar to raise my hand get my chin/head up. Has worked perfectly since those tweaks, but if all of these aggressive geo. Bikes are like this, then I’ll need to keep high riser bars in the bin for a while.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  3. #103
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    I don’t care what length dropper post one prefers but I see no downside to shorter seat tubes that will accept whatever dropper post is preferred.

    You need a straight-ish seat tube to get deep insertion. Drawback to this is that if you straighten the seat tube then you can't get the chainstays as short. Some don't care about short stays. I emphatically do. If I have to choose between a bike that can be panic manualed with little effort and one that has another inch or two of drop in the post, that choice is easy: Shorter stays every time.



    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    Same with shorter head tubes. It’s easier to add spacers (within reason) than try and shorten stack height on a bike with too long of head tube.

    Can't tell you the last time I assembled a bike for someone, or rode with someone, that was on the correct sized bike for them, and that had the stem slammed. I *know* it happens. I just never, ever see it anymore. Bars unable to be raised enough (because the steerer is cut too short) seems far, far, far more prevalent to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    In response to high engagement hubs increasing drag: Two words: sprague clutch. The Onyx hubs are a bit heavy but engagement is instant, they are dead silent, and they spin for days.

    Totally agree. That said, they are both very expensive and a good chunk heavier than most other hubs, thus no panacea. Compromises must be considered.


    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    29er vs 27.5? I’m perfectly happy with my puny 27.5” wheels... until I ride a 29er (see my introductory statement about bike demos).

    Ignorance is bliss...

  4. #104
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by leem85 View Post
    I also tend to agree re BB height.

    prev bike was 339 this one is 352. I don't notice an iota of difference in handling / cornering really but I can be much more care free with pedalling where I couldn't before and taking stupid lines without hitting the chain ring etc.

    Right?

    We can drop our CoG 5" (at least) with a push of a button, yet some would argue that we need our BB height so low that our pedals are scraping rocks even when level.

    Insanity.

    I'm a few days into a riding roadtrip right now. Fun/interesting to observe gouged/displaced rocks or embedded rock go-arounds in places where (with an appropriate BB height) one could easily keep pedaling through a section.

    And yet there are marketing geniuses out there right now crowing about how next year's bike is the same as this year's bike, except that they made it longer and lower...

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    You need a straight-ish seat tube to get deep insertion. Drawback to this is that if you straighten the seat tube then you can't get the chainstays as short.
    You can, you just have to angle the seat tube so that it inserts in front of the bb like Knolly. Straight seat tubes and deep seatpost insertion is a Knolly priority. (As are short stack heights which I’m not 100% in agreement with).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  6. #106
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    You can, you just have to angle the seat tube so that it inserts in front of the bb like Knolly. Straight seat tubes and deep seatpost insertion is a Knolly priority. (As are short stack heights which I’m not 100% in agreement with).

    Sure. But every choice introduces a new set of compromises -- as you're well aware. Longer links, more bearings/pivots, etc... Never a free lunch.

    If I don't notice a need for more than 125mm of drop, why complicate or add mass to the rest of the frame for something I don't want or need?

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPA Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    why complicate or add mass to the rest of the frame for something I don't want or need?
    If only manufacturers would listen to this
    Riding: '91 Carbon Epic Stumpjumper w/1" Slicks and a Rack on the Back

  8. #108
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,037
    Chainstay length, like some other figures, is blown away out of proportion, to the point where some people start to make this the deciding factor of the bike. Sure, if it's goofy-long like 18.5, it might be worth passing up the bike, but people put far too much weight on this one factor without considering the rest of the bike and how it works togther. IMO, this is just a backlash from the days when the chainstays on the 29ers were so bad (long). Just recently moved my rear wheel back on my fatbike to the rear position to fit bigger tires. I'm having a blast doing doubles, tabletops, drops, root-chutes, etc., on it. Chainstays are not the end-all of mtb handling, just a component and other factors can dictate how maneuverable and fun the bike is besides them.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Sure. But every choice introduces a new set of compromises -- as you're well aware. Longer links, more bearings/pivots, etc... Never a free lunch.

    If I don't notice a need for more than 125mm of drop, why complicate or add mass to the rest of the frame for something I don't want or need?
    True. It’s always nice when a bike manufacturer can cater to more people, though..... without too many compromises in other areas.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  10. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Right?

    We can drop our CoG 5" (at least) with a push of a button, yet some would argue that we need our BB height so low that our pedals are scraping rocks even when level.

    Insanity.

    I'm a few days into a riding roadtrip right now. Fun/interesting to observe gouged/displaced rocks or embedded rock go-arounds in places where (with an appropriate BB height) one could easily keep pedaling through a section.

    And yet there are marketing geniuses out there right now crowing about how next year's bike is the same as this year's bike, except that they made it longer and lower...
    Not sure I’m following you. Those rock strikes are usually always a skills issue. Spend a day at slick rock trail in spring or fall and watch the beginners chew up their pedals everywhere trying to pedal through terrain changes instead of carrying speed into them. Same thing with the Bar M area. Beginner areas always show more signs of rock strikes than places like gold bar/portal. Same general terrain features- ledgy sandstone just different grades, same bikes...

    COG is ultimately dictated by how high your feet are off the ground or how high your weight is carried. Seat height doesn’t matter because you shouldn’t be sitting down. Aggressively leaning forward will lower your COG as well but it’s impossible to get your feet under the pedals. Pedal height is the real limiting factor. This is easy to test by appropriately dropping your outside foot going through a turn vs keeping your pedals flat. Dropping that foot will allow you to go much faster because your COG is lower.

    That’s why I sometimes laugh at people wanting 160mm cranks to avoid rock strikes. It’s a skills issue. Shorter cranks effectively raise your COG. It’s a small nuance but if you’re chasing speed it definitely matters.

    I’m not necessarily arguing about some BB’s being too low but I think a lot of this is region specific. Certain areas... the lower the better. Personally anything lower than about 13.5 is noticeable to me locally and feels like my sweet spot with 175 cranks. Obviously a lot of this is personal preference but there is a noticeable detriment to running too high of a BB and/or tiny crank arms. I can think of one guy featured in numerous follow cam Friday videos who is amazing to watch ride. He’s on a HTLT- 13.31” bb.

    Also, my tallboy3 with a bb of 12.99 never had pedal strikes with flat pedals and I rode that thing all over Colorado including the GJ off-road 40 without issue. I’m sure there’s a too low but I’m not sure any big name bikes are there yet, maybe just a “too low for me”.
    Denver, CO

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    COG is ultimately dictated by how high your feet are off the ground or how high your weight is carried. Seat height doesn’t matter because you shouldn’t be sitting down. Aggressively leaning forward will lower your COG as well but it’s impossible to get your feet under the pedals. Pedal height is the real limiting factor. This is easy to test by appropriately dropping your outside foot going through a turn vs keeping your pedals flat. Dropping that foot will allow you to go much faster because your COG is lower.
    I'm not sure this is really correct. Lowering the pedal on one side raises the pedal on the other - this would have no effect on COG since the two offset each other. I *think* lowering the outer pedal on the turn allows you to lean the bike more, which does result in a lower of COG (sort of like the long-leg / short-leg concept in skiing), and likely having a lower bottom bracket makes this easier. I have no doubt that you are a significantly better rider than I am, so I will leave this at a simple statement of my understanding of physics.

    Anyway - totally agree with the rest of your post. I think this is to some degree trail/region- specific, and skills/fitness certainly are a factor. I just wish that those of us that wanted higher bottom brackets had more options available.

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by SqueakyWheel73 View Post
    I'm not sure this is really correct. Lowering the pedal on one side raises the pedal on the other - this would have no effect on COG since the two offset each other.
    Your inside leg bends to allow your hips to drop. With that in mind and your weight on your outside foot your COG will be lower. Although I suspect crank length isn't as important as BB height.

    If you're really railing a flat turn you should be really low (almost beside the bike). However, you'll rarely if ever see anyone do this at you're local trails. Given that nearly all mountain bikers don't have basic cornering technique down, I can see why they don't see the benefit of a low BB.
    Last edited by jeremy3220; 2 Weeks Ago at 02:30 PM.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    The CG of the bike/rider system is mostly determined by CG of the rider. That is pretty much core of the rider. This moves around a lot because a rider is not in a static position. Longer crank arms and lower BB lower the CG of the system, but it is never as simple as that so much will be impacted by rider position compared to BB and crank. Poor position will negate and benefits from lower BB. Poor technique also increases pedal strikes. Some times it just being sloppy and tired, but other times is not understanding how you need to always consider where your pedals are in technical terrain. I fined myself at times having to think about where my cranks will be as cross certain features. Some times I have to ratchet back to get the cranks liked up for a power stroke and/or to clear a rock rather than blindly thrashing on the pedals. However sometimes all it takes is few mm between clearing and a pedal strike when you have pedal through something.

    Really though you can escape the need for technique It is worth so much to the overall riding experience. I have seen some really fast and skilled guys and they always remind me that my technique overall is pretty solid, but still is no where near top notch. There is still so much to learn and refine on all ends of the riding spectrum.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPA Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Chainstay length, like some other figures, is blown away out of proportion, to the point where some people start to make this the deciding factor of the bike. Sure, if it's goofy-long like 18.5, it might be worth passing up the bike, but people put far too much weight on this one factor without considering the rest of the bike and how it works togther. IMO, this is just a backlash from the days when the chainstays on the 29ers were so bad (long). Just recently moved my rear wheel back on my fatbike to the rear position to fit bigger tires. I'm having a blast doing doubles, tabletops, drops, root-chutes, etc., on it. Chainstays are not the end-all of mtb handling, just a component and other factors can dictate how maneuverable and fun the bike is besides them.
    Yes...judging a bike based on one dimension in isolation is pretty silly...put a longer chainstay together with a big BB drop, and you have a bit more to go on
    Riding: '91 Carbon Epic Stumpjumper w/1" Slicks and a Rack on the Back

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    It's very simple: Ride the bike the way you like to ride a bike, compare that experience to the bikes you like/dislike, then look at the qualities of the bike that make it ride the way it does.

    Short chainstays matter more than most any other geo measurement BECAUSE you can't change it, unlike other geometry which can be tweaked by moving the seat, changing crank length, changing stem length, changing bar width/height, changing fork length, adding an angleset, etc...

    This ^ is why some of us look at chainlength first, cuz it does matter more than other meaures, if only because it's a "fixed" measurement.

    And if you ain't never ridden a 420mm or shorter chainstay, you have no idea what you're missing. Just saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by IPA Rider View Post
    Yes...judging a bike based on one dimension in isolation is pretty silly...put a longer chainstay together with a big BB drop, and you have a bit more to go on
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    I feel for Mike, what a shitshow this has turned into, all because he gave his advice from a professional standpoint. I'd love to have had a shot at riding all those bike on the GJ trails, what a thrill!

    I look forward to reading the reviews. I miss the days when reviews were paper and social media didn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Not sure I’m following you. Those rock strikes are usually always a skills issue. Spend a day at slick rock trail in spring or fall and watch the beginners chew up their pedals everywhere trying to pedal through terrain changes instead of carrying speed into them. Same thing with the Bar M area. Beginner areas always show more signs of rock strikes than places like gold bar/portal. Same general terrain features- ledgy sandstone just different grades, same bikes...

    COG is ultimately dictated by how high your feet are off the ground or how high your weight is carried. Seat height doesn’t matter because you shouldn’t be sitting down. Aggressively leaning forward will lower your COG as well but it’s impossible to get your feet under the pedals. Pedal height is the real limiting factor. This is easy to test by appropriately dropping your outside foot going through a turn vs keeping your pedals flat. Dropping that foot will allow you to go much faster because your COG is lower.

    That’s why I sometimes laugh at people wanting 160mm cranks to avoid rock strikes. It’s a skills issue. Shorter cranks effectively raise your COG. It’s a small nuance but if you’re chasing speed it definitely matters.

    I’m not necessarily arguing about some BB’s being too low but I think a lot of this is region specific. Certain areas... the lower the better. Personally anything lower than about 13.5 is noticeable to me locally and feels like my sweet spot with 175 cranks. Obviously a lot of this is personal preference but there is a noticeable detriment to running too high of a BB and/or tiny crank arms. I can think of one guy featured in numerous follow cam Friday videos who is amazing to watch ride. He’s on a HTLT- 13.31” bb.

    Also, my tallboy3 with a bb of 12.99 never had pedal strikes with flat pedals and I rode that thing all over Colorado including the GJ off-road 40 without issue. I’m sure there’s a too low but I’m not sure any big name bikes are there yet, maybe just a “too low for me”.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I feel for Mike, what a shitshow this has turned into, all because he gave his advice from a professional standpoint. I'd love to have had a shot at riding all those bike on the GJ trails, what a thrill!
    Wow... I have met Mike in person as well. My post wasn't a dig at him, and I hope he didn't take it that way! Just an opinion from my point of view and my riding style/priorities which differ a lot from his! I thought the point of these forums was discussion otherwise I would have assumed he would have just made it a blog post. Mike is very vocal about hating low bottom brackets. I understand his gripe but it's a preference... There are a TON of people out there absolutely destroying it on the same terrain he rides on with bikes with 13" BB's. "Destroying it" obviously means different things to different people. That was the point I was trying to make. A bike that has a low BB is not "unrideable" by any means.

    I look forward to reading the reviews. I miss the days when reviews were paper and social media didn't exist.
    Sign out and never come back? Is someone forcing you on to social media? Actually I believe Mike isn't on any social media. That seems like an easy fix...
    Denver, CO

  18. #118
    Ride On
    Reputation: geraldooka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I feel for Mike, what a shitshow this has turned into, all because he gave his advice from a professional standpoint. I'd love to have had a shot at riding all those bike on the GJ trails, what a thrill!

    I look forward to reading the reviews. I miss the days when reviews were paper and social media didn't exist.
    Why? Are you annoyed that people have different opinions?

    What do you think “professional” reviews are?

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Wow... I have met Mike in person as well. My post wasn't a dig at him, and I hope he didn't take it that way! Just an opinion from my point of view and my riding style/priorities which differ a lot from his! I thought the point of these forums was discussion otherwise I would have assumed he would have just made it a blog post. Mike is very vocal about hating low bottom brackets. I understand his gripe but it's a preference... There are a TON of people out there absolutely destroying it on the same terrain he rides on with bikes with 13" BB's. "Destroying it" obviously means different things to different people. That was the point I was trying to make. A bike that has a low BB is not "unrideable" by any means.



    Sign out and never come back? Is someone forcing you on to social media? Actually I believe Mike isn't on any social media. That seems like an easy fix...
    Your comment seemed completely in-line with the OP. I didn’t view you as having a battery on your shoulder.

    One of my all-time favorite bikes was my old Enduro, but it didn’t rise to that status until I flipped the shock link over, which “slackened” the HA to about 70, and lowered the BB height to around 12.25. It railed berms and curves like i could not believe, it shot out like a rocket. I had to deal with pedal strikes, even to the point where outside pedal at 6 in a corner may strike the odd rock or just a rise in the terrain. Easy enough to adjust.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    549
    I appreciate Mike's post, as well as the replies. I agree with some of it, and disagree with some of it, but the original post and the replies have given me information and perspective unattainable with the small data set of my personal experience. I would disagree that the thread has turned into a shitshow.

  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy13 View Post
    I appreciate Mike's post, as well as the replies. I agree with some of it, and disagree with some of it, but the original post and the replies have given me information and perspective unattainable with the small data set of my personal experience. I would disagree that the thread has turned into a shitshow.
    Agreed...if nothing else, it just shows that we all like different bikes, tires, seat post lengths, etc and it's nice to have options. I love 27.5 bikes, prefer 150mm droppers and hate the 2.8 tires that the OP loves. I wouldn't run a 2.8 tire if you gave them to me for free.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  22. #122
    Your Best Friend
    Reputation: Silentfoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,088
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    Agreed...if nothing else, it just shows that we all like different bikes, tires, seat post lengths, etc and it's nice to have options. I love 27.5 bikes, prefer 150mm droppers and hate the 2.8 tires that the OP loves. I wouldn't run a 2.8 tire if you gave them to me for free.
    I hate 27.5 bikes, probably need a 175mm but a 150mm is fine. 125mm would never work. 2.8 tires are miserably slow. How's that?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    I'm a mountain bike guide in southwest Utah

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,840
    LMAO! Im short so like short chainstays with 29ers. And definitely share the OPs higher BB preference.

  24. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Silentfoe View Post
    I hate 27.5 bikes, probably need a 175mm but a 150mm is fine. 125mm would never work. 2.8 tires are miserably slow. How's that?

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    You're 2/3 of the way there. I'm looking to come your way Dec 13-15 but waiting until the last minute to make sure the weather is reasonable.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  25. #125
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    It's very simple: Ride the bike the way you like to ride a bike, compare that experience to the bikes you like/dislike, then look at the qualities of the bike that make it ride the way it does.

    Short chainstays matter more than most any other geo measurement BECAUSE you can't change it, unlike other geometry which can be tweaked by moving the seat, changing crank length, changing stem length, changing bar width/height, changing fork length, adding an angleset, etc...

    This ^ is why some of us look at chainlength first, cuz it does matter more than other meaures, if only because it's a "fixed" measurement.

    And if you ain't never ridden a 420mm or shorter chainstay, you have no idea what you're missing. Just saying...
    Thats why I should have never gotten a Canfield bike. I have tried quite a few other bikes but they all lack that short back end playful feeling that I seem to have adapted my riding style to. I even have a fancy all carbon bike that people would love to have that I find zero enjoyment in riding because it does not turn and whip around like a super short rear end.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    You think too highly of yourself, maybe get over it and move on?

    I could care less what a bunch of armchair posters think, whereas Mike sctually rides bikes, has an extensive experience in the industry, and is also very transparent.

    You’re just a dude, playing a dude, who thinks he’s the dude.

    Nice neg rep btw (insert eye roll).

    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Wow... I have met Mike in person as well. My post wasn't a dig at him, and I hope he didn't take it that way! Just an opinion from my point of view and my riding style/priorities which differ a lot from his! I thought the point of these forums was discussion otherwise I would have assumed he would have just made it a blog post. Mike is very vocal about hating low bottom brackets. I understand his gripe but it's a preference... There are a TON of people out there absolutely destroying it on the same terrain he rides on with bikes with 13" BB's. "Destroying it" obviously means different things to different people. That was the point I was trying to make. A bike that has a low BB is not "unrideable" by any means.



    Sign out and never come back? Is someone forcing you on to social media? Actually I believe Mike isn't on any social media. That seems like an easy fix...
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Can't tell you the last time I assembled a bike for someone, or rode with someone, that was on the correct sized bike for them, and that had the stem slammed. I *know* it happens. I just never, ever see it anymore. Bars unable to be raised enough (because the steerer is cut too short) seems far, far, far more prevalent to me.
    You've not assembled a bike for me. I am not particularly fit or flexible (I can't bend over and touch my toes to save my life), but a medium 100mm hardtail 29er with a 100mm head tube requires a slammed -6 degree 50mm stem and a low or flat bar for me to ride it without feeling like I am riding ape hangers. anything higher makes me feel like I am on a beach cruiser and the front wheel has a mind of its own.

    I get this position based on reach and stack measurements from the BB, not from the saddle. Steep seat tube angles would make this worse. I have a short Flatforce -30 degree stem that I would need on most bikes if I was to put a longer fork on my bike. anything higher feels like the front tire just has a mind of it's own.

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    You think too highly of yourself, maybe get over it and move on?

    I could care less what a bunch of armchair posters think, whereas Mike sctually rides bikes, has an extensive experience in the industry, and is also very transparent.

    You’re just a dude, playing a dude, who thinks he’s the dude.

    Nice neg rep btw (insert eye roll).
    No idea what your problem with me is man.... I don't think I've ever met you outside of MTBR. I hope you have a better day though. I'm not trying to be "anyone" other than a dude who loves to ride bikes (for the last 20 years) and is stoked on new bike tech. But you're saying I don't ride bikes? LOL.... ok. I know I am definitely currently more involved in the race scene (and he was testing "enduro" bikes) than he is but when did this become a pissing contest versus sharing opinions and ideas? Mike when was your last Enduro or DH race?

    You got negative rep'ed because you seem to be wound super tight and for some reason have a love affair with Mike and think his opinion is the only one that matters in this industry. Mike is a bad ass and has done some really amazing things in endurance MTB'ing no doubt. That doesn't lessen the opinion or point of view from anyone else though. Especially in testing some long travel 29'ers. This is a message forum where ideas and opinions are shared. Maybe you didn't realize that? Happy Holidays...
    Last edited by Streetdoctor; 2 Weeks Ago at 01:36 PM.
    Denver, CO

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    You've not assembled a bike for me. I am not particularly fit or flexible (I can't bend over and touch my toes to save my life), but a medium 100mm hardtail 29er with a 100mm head tube requires a slammed -6 degree 50mm stem and a low or flat bar for me to ride it without feeling like I am riding ape hangers. anything higher makes me feel like I am on a beach cruiser and the front wheel has a mind of its own.

    I get this position based on reach and stack measurements from the BB, not from the saddle. Steep seat tube angles would make this worse. I have a short Flatforce -30 degree stem that I would need on most bikes if I was to put a longer fork on my bike. anything higher feels like the front tire just has a mind of it's own.
    I know this is in response to his post, but my issue is that X-large frames have head tubes 10mm longer than medium frames. I'm pretty sure people riding XL frames proportionally need more than 10mm of stack.

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    No idea what your problem with me is man.... I don't think I've ever met you outside of MTBR. I hope you have a better day though. I'm not trying to be "anyone" other than a dude who loves to ride bikes (for the last 20 years) and is stoked on new bike tech. But you're saying I don't ride bikes? LOL.... ok. I know I am definitely currently more involved in the race scene (and he was testing "enduro" bikes) than he is but when did this become a pissing contest versus sharing opinions and ideas? Mike when was your last Enduro or DH race?

    You got negative rep'ed because you seem to be wound super tight and for some reason have a love affair with Mike and think his opinion is the only one that matters in this industry. Mike is a bad ass and has done some really amazing things in endurance MTB'ing no doubt. That doesn't lesson the opinion or point of view from anyone else though. Especially in testing some long travel 29'ers. This is a message forum where ideas and opinions are shared. Maybe you didn't realize that? Happy Holidays...
    Perhaps he has the same issue with your post that I do. You inferred, if not outright stated, that people hit their pedals because of lack of skill. I take offense to that, not because I care what you think or know who you are, but because you don't know what I ride or who I am. I'm not the best bike handler in the world, but I have been riding enough bikes for enough years on enough trails to tell me that some trails just require pedaling through rocks and roots. My most painful crash came from a pedal strike on a root or rock that I still can't find on the trail. That doesn't make me a poor or inexperienced rider, and I don't appreciate you telling me that I am. Now get off my lawn.

  31. #131
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    When you put streetcertifiednursingassistant on your ignore list you no longer have to read about how much faster and more awesome he is than you.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  32. #132
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    wow!!! lots of crabby folks in here today? Cant fight with your inlaws over turkey yesterday, so take that hostile attitude to MTBR?

    I too thought Street Dr. was a bit big headed when I read his post in the past. Then I met him in person and turns out he is just a dude, playing a dude that likes to ride bikes talking to a dude, playing a dude about dudes riding bikes. He really is not the ass that some folks thinks he is. I also agree that some of the pedal smashing and crashed due to getting pole vaulted from a low BB come down to skill and knowing when to pedal or when not to pedal and if they can time their pedals. There was a time that some learned to ride bikes with 15" bottom brackets and cannot seem to adapt to modern low ones. That is fine, but just know, most of the time it is the indian and the arrow. Otherwise it would be hands across America to get BB height raised up. If you like high BB good on you, then find a bike with one. Kinda like, I dont like big girls, so I dont go and date or sleep with a bunch of large females and complain the whole time they are big. Nope I just find a fit girl instead because that is my preference even though the industry ( the US) trend is to be larger. You know your own preference so just look for that and let the other people enjoy theirs.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    wow!!! lots of crabby folks in here today? Cant fight with your inlaws over turkey yesterday, so take that hostile attitude to MTBR?

    I too thought Street Dr. was a bit big headed when I read his post in the past. Then I met him in person and turns out he is just a dude, playing a dude that likes to ride bikes talking to a dude, playing a dude about dudes riding bikes. He really is not the ass that some folks thinks he is. I also agree that some of the pedal smashing and crashed due to getting pole vaulted from a low BB come down to skill and knowing when to pedal or when not to pedal and if they can time their pedals. There was a time that some learned to ride bikes with 15" bottom brackets and cannot seem to adapt to modern low ones. That is fine, but just know, most of the time it is the indian and the arrow. Otherwise it would be hands across America to get BB height raised up. If you like high BB good on you, then find a bike with one. Kinda like, I dont like big girls, so I dont go and date or sleep with a bunch of large females and complain the whole time they are big. Nope I just find a fit girl instead because that is my preference even though the industry ( the US) trend is to be larger. You know your own preference so just look for that and let the other people enjoy theirs.
    Or maybe you just aren't skilled enough to appreciate a big girl.

    What is actually frustrating to me is that dudes use that skill argument for things without thinking about it. I mean, it takes skill to ride a bike with a higher bottom bracket fast. Less stable, etc. It is more dangerous to clip a pedal than to raise a bottom bracket half an inch, and most people claiming a lack of skill probably wouldn't notice a half inch difference, anyway. You running disc brakes? What, you aren't skilled enough to ride without super powerful brakes? Suspension? A skilled rider doesn't need that. Low bottom bracket? What, you need more security from your raked out mini downhill sled? Come on. Some things just make more sense for certain people. You say to each their own, but then you judge their talent and experience for making different decisions. Not cool, "dude".

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,840
    I like big butts and BBs over 13.4 (but no more than 13.75) and cannot lie.

  35. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Or maybe you just aren't skilled enough to appreciate a big girl.

    What is actually frustrating to me is that dudes use that skill argument for things without thinking about it. I mean, it takes skill to ride a bike with a higher bottom bracket fast. Less stable, etc. It is more dangerous to clip a pedal than to raise a bottom bracket half an inch, and most people claiming a lack of skill probably wouldn't notice a half inch difference, anyway. You running disc brakes? What, you aren't skilled enough to ride without super powerful brakes? Suspension? A skilled rider doesn't need that. Low bottom bracket? What, you need more security from your raked out mini downhill sled? Come on. Some things just make more sense for certain people. You say to each their own, but then you judge their talent and experience for making different decisions. Not cool, "dude".
    I tried really hard not to respond but I can't help myself.

    uhhhhh... none of that makes sense. Why ride a bike at all then? Why not roll down the trail balancing on a basketball? A skilled human doesn't need a bike. Your argument just isn't valid.

    Why don't we see rigid high BB bikes with vee brakes and 72* HTA's competing in WC DH? Progression.

    Yes pedal strikes are most definitely a skills issue of knowing when or when not to pedal and how to carry momentum. Just because that offends you it doesn't make it any less true because you are resistant to change. All the things you mentioned allow you to go faster- lower BB, better brakes, slacker HTA's, better suspension.... I say to each their own but don't try to claim things that simply aren't true. Afterall, not everyone is looking to go fast. Why does that offend you so much? You sound like someone who is very insecure in the skillset you possess and believe yourself to be something you're not. Or are you just closed-minded and resistant to change?

    My post regarding Mike is a perfect example... he's not looking to go fast and likes what he likes, he's never implied otherwise. Is he the best candidate to do a review on modern enduro bikes? probably not but good for him! I simply posted a different view point. It doesn't make either of us "better" than the other, just different preferences which was the point of my post to begin with. Guys like you and Nurse Ben take offense to that for some reason though which boggles my mind. Because Mike was once a professional endurance racer apparently that means he knows more about every aspect of bicycles though... I wonder what his thoughts are on recumbent's on Moore fun . Oooh we should talk about suspension setup too.

    Mountain biking is partly about freedom of expression. Not everyone thinks the way you or I do. That's a good thing.

    Also, I don't know why Blatant always brings my career into question. He had to tell me he's a cop and how he always has to "rescue" us in another thread.... I've been in this line of work for 14 years and don't recall that ever happening but way to be a typical angry cop... Must not have got his donuts this morning or maybe his wife cheated on him with a firefighter. It sounds like he's upset he checked the wrong box on the job announcement and is bitter everyone across the country hates him.
    Denver, CO

  36. #136
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Or maybe you just aren't skilled enough to appreciate a big girl.

    What is actually frustrating to me is that dudes use that skill argument for things without thinking about it. I mean, it takes skill to ride a bike with a higher bottom bracket fast. Less stable, etc. It is more dangerous to clip a pedal than to raise a bottom bracket half an inch, and most people claiming a lack of skill probably wouldn't notice a half inch difference, anyway. You running disc brakes? What, you aren't skilled enough to ride without super powerful brakes? Suspension? A skilled rider doesn't need that. Low bottom bracket? What, you need more security from your raked out mini downhill sled? Come on. Some things just make more sense for certain people. You say to each their own, but then you judge their talent and experience for making different decisions. Not cool, "dude".
    Or maybe I just dont have a big enough ...... to make the best of a big girl. Either way, you can keep the big girls. Lack of skill or junk I know what I like so it is little effect on me if you think it is skill or preference I know where I will be shopping for my preference.

    Either way, I am not going to be a big snowflake about it since everyone is entitled to our own opinion. Just because yours is different then mine does not make either of us wrong. We are talking about something subjective not something based on fact. Take a few mins to breath, and relax and that realize you are a big boy (or girl) and that if someone on the internet says something is up to skill and you hit your pedals he is not saying you have no skills. He is saying in his opinion that it is skill because someone out there is able to do it.

    Do i have all those things, brakes, tires, suspension... yep sure do! I am all so under the opinion that I am sure all my same trails can be ridden without them but I know what my preference is so I stay on my end of the pond. The reason I know my choice is made off of skill is because there is someone out there that can do it without a problem, which means, yep they have more skill than me. I can admit that.

    Final thought, you dont need to answer. So if you and a guy both with a low BB bike go ride the same trail at the same time and you hit a pedal and he does not, what is the separating factor? (Note I did not say you have no skill I simply asked if he might have more. If I hurt your ego I am sorry. HTFU)

  37. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    When you put streetcertifiednursingassistant on your ignore list you no longer have to read about how much faster and more awesome he is than you.
    He is a bit of a **** but he has some legit complaints.

  38. #138
    Hisforever
    Reputation: SHAHEEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,677
    1st things first: Bikes really are great these days. Can we all appreciate that for moment and be thankfull? These are just toys, and we love to ride them...

    Mike, very engaging read. I am left really wanting more...., to hear more of your thoughts of what the 'most fun' bike looks like for you there in your terranosphere.

    I still dont know what bikes where reviewed but i can see an Orbea box(rallon?), some specialized's, looks like a carbon sentinel, the new travel changing Scott, probably a santa cruz, & BMC, & grbox bike.

    Sounds like home is still the best.

    Thanks again!!!

    Happy Trails
    Jesus Saves




  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,779
    BB height just depends on where you ride. I think a lot of the low BB it's your skill not the bike people ride out west.

    Here on the east coast there is a lot of rocky rooty terrain you have to pedal through.

    It's not a lack of being able to maintain momentum, it's not a lack of timing your pedaling- it the terrain plain and simple.

    Not that you can't ride either anywhere, but I think there is a big difference in what I would call a west coast bike vs. and east coast bike.
    Tallboy 3.1
    OG Ripley v2

  40. #140
    www.ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    546
    Here's my perspective:

    There's likely better out there, than what you have in mind.

    It's difficult to find "the one", that versatile all-rounder that gives up little to nothing.

    You often can think of 2-3 different options, and wish that there was a mix of all their desirable traits that would create a great option for your needs.



    If I were to sum up the situation I typically see as an outsider observing patterns of discussion, here are the problems:

    There's just too much hype. It's easy to forgive hype and this fact is repulsive to me. People like to judge things as good, bad, best, better, terrible, etc., but these judgments are all based on limited personal bias. That bias tends to only be backed through perceived authority/expertise of the author of the post.

    There's just far too many posts where people announce what they're willing to be open to, expecting someone could convince them in a peculiarly agreeable way, often just replying with what they're afraid of, or afraid of letting go (of something that worked in the past). It's like people are treating the forums as a support group, looking for "brothers-in-arms" to venture into uncharted territory with less anxiety.

    Sh!t posts... these poo-poo flinging posts that have no evidence backing them derail the thread, with "defenders" asking for more info and then trying to defame the post's author so they have no authority. It's like a witch hunt, and even if it's backed by many different people claiming similar shortcomings, there's no forgiveness for the one that dared to be honest about a bike's fault and got burned.

    Planned obsolescence... people complain about this all the time, but what do they do about it besides whining? It's like a conspiracy theory nowadays...


    So perhaps there seems to be many bikes that seem good in general, maybe in reality there isn't, since all you see hype and "interest", while the criticism is mobbed out. People seem to want to "sold" on something, opening up to select sources, such as "peers", popularity contests, or select manufacturers that you're a fan of. If that mfg, that you're a fan of, copied another brand, it becomes validated... you might have preference for that brand, but see that it's not the only one on the block, you can't say the others are bad, since your brand is so similar (at least on paper).


    Here's my solution:

    I personally see virtually every bike as outdated. This makes it so I judge outdated bikes as acceptable. This includes the bikes I own. Basically, I don't care if it's outdated. I just prioritize what's important to me, and stop worrying about trends. The ideal bike resides only in my mind (constantly being refined), and hasn't come into existence until I make it myself, if I had the resources and ability to. In other words, I also see all bikes as unideal and compromised, therefore affecting my urge/want of the new options coming out. I like that Pole Stamina and SB150, but since they cost $3.5+k for the frames, they've priced me out of any interest. Like my non-riding friends say, it better have a motor at that price.

    I personally see bikes as being tools. You choose the one that does the specific jobs at hand. The specific jobs are unique, in that they're at precise locations that you plan to visit (the trails) which tend to be relatively unchanging.

    What's changing are your preferences, and your judgments of what's acceptable. You can control this. Control what can be changed; don't bother with what can't be changed.

    If you're the type whose preferences changes based on trends, such as people opening up to extreme geometry with 80d STA and 60+mm longer reach, or even motors, it seems kind of futile to fight the wave of what's becoming trendy. Perhaps it's even counterproductive, as the more you repeatedly expose yourself and others to controversy, the more the whole reality/truths of it come out, rather than your narrow twist on it.

    Consider ditching the habit of sitting on the fence. Drawing a line and watching who stands on either side, opting to join the winning side as it gains momentum, seems so sheepish. Consider the value of learning more about your needs, learn about the part of the world you call your own, to the point you can make your own decisions and be a strong independent individual who earns respect through pioneering and merit.

  41. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    BB height just depends on where you ride. I think a lot of the low BB it's your skill not the bike people ride out west.

    Here on the east coast there is a lot of rocky rooty terrain you have to pedal through.

    It's not a lack of being able to maintain momentum, it's not a lack of timing your pedaling- it the terrain plain and simple.

    Not that you can't ride either anywhere, but I think there is a big difference in what I would call a west coast bike vs. and east coast bike.
    I see guys ratcheting through a mile of rocky trail here in the east. I just peddle past them, sure its a skill but ill sacrifice a little stability to be able to ride my bike. If i lived elsewhere id probably love sub 13" BBs

  42. #142
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,037
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoTone View Post
    BB height just depends on where you ride. I think a lot of the low BB it's your skill not the bike people ride out west.

    Here on the east coast there is a lot of rocky rooty terrain you have to pedal through.

    It's not a lack of being able to maintain momentum, it's not a lack of timing your pedaling- it the terrain plain and simple.

    Not that you can't ride either anywhere, but I think there is a big difference in what I would call a west coast bike vs. and east coast bike.
    Out West.

    From where I sit: 2019 bike testing.-bw-004.jpg
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  43. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by ninjichor View Post
    Here's my perspective:

    There's likely better out there, than what you have in mind.

    It's difficult to find "the one", that versatile all-rounder that gives up little to nothing.

    You often can think of 2-3 different options, and wish that there was a mix of all their desirable traits that would create a great option for your needs.



    If I were to sum up the situation I typically see as an outsider observing patterns of discussion, here are the problems:

    There's just too much hype. It's easy to forgive hype and this fact is repulsive to me. People like to judge things as good, bad, best, better, terrible, etc., but these judgments are all based on limited personal bias. That bias tends to only be backed through perceived authority/expertise of the author of the post.

    There's just far too many posts where people announce what they're willing to be open to, expecting someone could convince them in a peculiarly agreeable way, often just replying with what they're afraid of, or afraid of letting go (of something that worked in the past). It's like people are treating the forums as a support group, looking for "brothers-in-arms" to venture into uncharted territory with less anxiety.

    Sh!t posts... these poo-poo flinging posts that have no evidence backing them derail the thread, with "defenders" asking for more info and then trying to defame the post's author so they have no authority. It's like a witch hunt, and even if it's backed by many different people claiming similar shortcomings, there's no forgiveness for the one that dared to be honest about a bike's fault and got burned.

    Planned obsolescence... people complain about this all the time, but what do they do about it besides whining? It's like a conspiracy theory nowadays...


    So perhaps there seems to be many bikes that seem good in general, maybe in reality there isn't, since all you see hype and "interest", while the criticism is mobbed out. People seem to want to "sold" on something, opening up to select sources, such as "peers", popularity contests, or select manufacturers that you're a fan of. If that mfg, that you're a fan of, copied another brand, it becomes validated... you might have preference for that brand, but see that it's not the only one on the block, you can't say the others are bad, since your brand is so similar (at least on paper).


    Here's my solution:

    I personally see virtually every bike as outdated. This makes it so I judge outdated bikes as acceptable. This includes the bikes I own. Basically, I don't care if it's outdated. I just prioritize what's important to me, and stop worrying about trends. The ideal bike resides only in my mind (constantly being refined), and hasn't come into existence until I make it myself, if I had the resources and ability to. In other words, I also see all bikes as unideal and compromised, therefore affecting my urge/want of the new options coming out. I like that Pole Stamina and SB150, but since they cost $3.5+k for the frames, they've priced me out of any interest. Like my non-riding friends say, it better have a motor at that price.

    I personally see bikes as being tools. You choose the one that does the specific jobs at hand. The specific jobs are unique, in that they're at precise locations that you plan to visit (the trails) which tend to be relatively unchanging.

    What's changing are your preferences, and your judgments of what's acceptable. You can control this. Control what can be changed; don't bother with what can't be changed.

    If you're the type whose preferences changes based on trends, such as people opening up to extreme geometry with 80d STA and 60+mm longer reach, or even motors, it seems kind of futile to fight the wave of what's becoming trendy. Perhaps it's even counterproductive, as the more you repeatedly expose yourself and others to controversy, the more the whole reality/truths of it come out, rather than your narrow twist on it.

    Consider ditching the habit of sitting on the fence. Drawing a line and watching who stands on either side, opting to join the winning side as it gains momentum, seems so sheepish. Consider the value of learning more about your needs, learn about the part of the world you call your own, to the point you can make your own decisions and be a strong independent individual who earns respect through pioneering and merit.
    With you as far as hype and the (inevitable?) attacks on the credibility of this poster v. that one. On the other hand, IMO, these forums do tend to bring out information that is otherwise hard to figure out short of personally testing scads of bikes since most of don't have that opportunity or time or money or expertise to do that. So, when you are trying to narrow down the field, it is helpful to hear whether folks find a particular bike to be a good climber, or descender or both or neither; whether it is plush or not; whether or whether a bike has decent rear tire clearance; or whether the pivots hold up or whatever. It is also interesting to read posts from folks who understand suspension kinematics and try to learn from there.

  44. #144
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Out West.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bw 004.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	193.0 KB 
ID:	1226031
    Right? I doubt the dude who wrote that has ever actually ridden out here.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Out West.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bw 004.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	193.0 KB 
ID:	1226031
    That's down, a low BB is fine there.

    Locally, that's what the climbs often look like, you need a higher BB in many cases to maintain momentum and clear the gnar.

    I've never ridden in SoCal (funny cause I lived there for years before being a rider) but watching the typical videos, it's much smoother/ faster/ open than my home trails.

    I'm sure there are exceptions of course.

    Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Suns_PSD View Post
    I've never ridden in SoCal (funny cause I lived there for years before being a rider) but watching the typical videos, it's much smoother/ faster/ open than my home trails.


    New England may or may not be gnarlier than West (never ridden there) but I do know that videos can make the roughest trails look like flat dirt sidewalks.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I look forward to reading the reviews. I miss the days when reviews were paper and social media didn't exist.
    Not at all. Many (most) paper reviews seem to be hype machines. Everything’s fantastic...goes up like XC anddown like a DH bike. While most bikes are pretty good/great, I think there’s a lot more valuable info on these forums.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,283
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Not at all. Many (most) paper reviews seem to be hype machines. Everything’s fantastic...goes up like XC anddown like a DH bike. While most bikes are pretty good/great, I think there’s a lot more valuable info on these forums.
    They can each be useful or useless information. The biggest “issue” with reviews in print is paid advertisement. Still, if you catch the subtle aspects of the reviews they can be very helpful. in addition, when say Bike Magazine provides a long-term review on a bike it can be much more helpful. My favorite Bible of Bike Review was the Trek Fuel that they slammed a few years ago. Within a week or two that review was deleted and the reviewers did a re-take that had the ring of a POW signed confession where it was now the greatest bike on the planet once they got the right size frame. In that profession you cannot come out and crush one of your biggest sponsors—it was foolish on their part but I also felt sorry for them that they were forced to do the re-take, lesson learned no doubt.

    There have been some stellar reviews on MTBR from users who have taken the time to share their demo day experiences and long-term use of a bike, but an MTBR user can also be biased by their own negative/positive experience on a bike.

    Both can be somewhat useful data points.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Out West.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bw 004.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	193.0 KB 
ID:	1226031
    Point? that's downhill or up depending on the the way you ride it. I'm talking about flat terrain that you have to pedal you're not ratching for climbing or using momentum on the way down.

    As mentioned above yes you could ratchet away for a long run, but why? it's not fun.
    Tallboy 3.1
    OG Ripley v2

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    Right? I doubt the dude who wrote that has ever actually ridden out here.
    And that's easily said about you, never ridden out here.
    Tallboy 3.1
    OG Ripley v2

  51. #151
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    I’m from Maryland, dude. I’m familiar with the east coast roughly between New York and North Carolina.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    The BB issue depends on what bikes we're talking about. If we're talking about enduro bikes (like the Scott Ransom) then the design is mostly based on winning enduro races and pedal strikes while climbing are an irrelevant (or largely secondary) problem. Don't use the wrong tool for the job then complain about certain parameters. If we're talking about trail/xc bikes then pedal strikes while climbing is a legit concern.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14
    ive gone from 339mm to 352 bb height as mentioned earlier. again cant say ive noticed any real negative. the bike is awesome for riding up technical stuff now though. less skilled required which is my preference because i'm all about sending it downhill. theres also been some benefits sending it down too. now i can sneak in a crank or two when im on race pace whereas I couldn't before.

    his left, hers right. at the end of the day its all a preference thing. its annoying when you see people claiming one or the other is better because 'reasons' and then criticize others.


    From where I sit: 2019 bike testing.-bikez.jpg

  54. #154
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    rock strikes are usually always a skills issue.

    Which is it -- usually or always?!


    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Pedal height is the real limiting factor. This is easy to test by appropriately dropping your outside foot going through a turn vs keeping your pedals flat. Dropping that foot will allow you to go much faster because your COG is lower.

    OK, call it pedal height if you need to. It's still dictated by the height of the BB from the ground.

    Can you clarify if you're talking about descending only, or climbing too? From the last quote above it sounds like descending. If I were riding lifts or a shuttle monkey then sure, fine, we could discuss that tiny (but rapidly growing) segment of the sport. But we -- or at least I -- aren't talking about that.

    I'm talking about your average chunky XC ride, where you climb everything you'll descend, and where said climbs feature lots of steep, sustained, chunky terrain where you're not going to be carrying momentum up anything, where in order to stay on the bike you're putting some power down while feathering a fine line, with a maxed heart rate, and sometimes with exposure as part of the deal. Ratcheting doesn't work here -- anyone that says or even implies it does doesn't understand the scenario.

    I'm not talking about 5 minutes of every ride (unless that ride is 7 minutes long...), I'm talking about ~90% of every ride.

    A too-low BB is a dealbreaker on these rides.

  55. #155
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    You've not assembled a bike for me. I am not particularly fit or flexible (I can't bend over and touch my toes to save my life), but a medium 100mm hardtail 29er with a 100mm head tube requires a slammed -6 degree 50mm stem and a low or flat bar for me to ride it without feeling like I am riding ape hangers. anything higher makes me feel like I am on a beach cruiser and the front wheel has a mind of its own.

    I get this position based on reach and stack measurements from the BB, not from the saddle. Steep seat tube angles would make this worse. I have a short Flatforce -30 degree stem that I would need on most bikes if I was to put a longer fork on my bike. anything higher feels like the front tire just has a mind of it's own.

    There are tens of millions of people for whom I haven't assembled bikes. Few -- like 5%, maybe less -- need the mutant riding position that you say you do, and that I rode with ~20 years ago.

    I'm not saying that you *don't* need that position. I'm saying that few do, and leaving steerers longer doesn't exclude you from riding a given bike, but it does leave that bike open to people whom want their bars higher relative to their saddle height.

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Also, I don't know why Blatant always brings my career into question. He had to tell me he's a cop and how he always has to "rescue" us in another thread.... I've been in this line of work for 14 years and don't recall that ever happening but way to be a typical angry cop... Must not have got his donuts this morning or maybe his wife cheated on him with a firefighter. It sounds like he's upset he checked the wrong box on the job announcement and is bitter everyone across the country hates him.
    Absolutely uncalled for and even if it was true, you disparaged an entire profession based on your opinions of Blatant. I don't know about being "rescued" but everybody knows that Medics and FF's don't go into a violent/dangerous scene until the cops go in first and make sure it's safe. Secondly, I was unaware that everybody hates (your word) police officers. It's been my experience that the people that hate cops are generally dirtbags, people involved in criminal activity that are tired of getting caught and pussies who who don't have the sack to do the job so they have to disparage those that do. Kind of like the same people who like to put down the military for doing what they do.
    2019 Yeti SB5C
    2018 Intense Tracer
    2017 Intense Primer

  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    I'm not saying that you *don't* need that position. I'm saying that few do, and leaving steerers longer doesn't exclude you from riding a given bike, but it does leave that bike open to people whom want their bars higher relative to their saddle height.
    I know what you're thinking, I've seen the 1990s 26er with the handlebar 6 inches below the saddle. It's not as severe as it sounds. My grips are maybe an inch below my saddle. The frame has a low BB, so putting the bars higher would mean putting the grips really far from my feet at the cost of my arms' range of motion and a stable position. The saddle height in comparison should be inconsequential for someone like me, with average proportions.

    My next bike will have a higher BB for the reasons you've stated, and my bars will have to come up a bit, but so will my saddle. I'll probably accomplish that by flipping the stem up and putting a 5mm spacer under it. Not sure exactly where that will put the saddle relative to the grips, but that's inconsequential as I spend more time off the saddle than on it when handling counts.

    I agree that steerer tubes should be long and bigger bikes should have longer head tubes, but as forks get longer, it gets difficult to get the bars low enough that you don't feel like you're riding in Tyrannosaurus Rex-arm position. I had that experience on a borrowed bike the other day and it was very awkward to feel so incredibly upright.
    Last edited by mack_turtle; 2 Weeks Ago at 06:47 PM.

  58. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Your neg rep of me says more about you, just saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    No idea what your problem with me is man.... I don't think I've ever met you outside of MTBR. I hope you have a better day though. I'm not trying to be "anyone" other than a dude who loves to ride bikes (for the last 20 years) and is stoked on new bike tech. But you're saying I don't ride bikes? LOL.... ok. I know I am definitely currently more involved in the race scene (and he was testing "enduro" bikes) than he is but when did this become a pissing contest versus sharing opinions and ideas? Mike when was your last Enduro or DH race?

    You got negative rep'ed because you seem to be wound super tight and for some reason have a love affair with Mike and think his opinion is the only one that matters in this industry. Mike is a bad ass and has done some really amazing things in endurance MTB'ing no doubt. That doesn't lessen the opinion or point of view from anyone else though. Especially in testing some long travel 29'ers. This is a message forum where ideas and opinions are shared. Maybe you didn't realize that? Happy Holidays...
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  59. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by k2rider1964 View Post
    Absolutely uncalled for and even if it was true, you disparaged an entire profession based on your opinions of Blatant. I don't know about being "rescued" but everybody knows that Medics and FF's don't go into a violent/dangerous scene until the cops go in first and make sure it's safe. Secondly, I was unaware that everybody hates (your word) police officers. It's been my experience that the people that hate cops are generally dirtbags, people involved in criminal activity that are tired of getting caught and pussies who who don't have the sack to do the job so they have to disparage those that do. Kind of like the same people who like to put down the military for doing what they do.
    “Even if it was true”? It’s a public forum search it out if you happen to care and obviously assume I would make it up (why? This is a MTB forum). My post is uncalled for but calling me a “streetnursingassistant” is ok? Ya ok... you must be a cop too. Stereotyping sucks doesn’t it?

    If you don’t think a large percentage of the (vocal) population dislike cops you must only watch Fox News or you’re a cop and stay in your cop bubble. For the record we’re all on the same side. Regarding what “everyone” knows, you’re not very aware of new active killer protocol then. No one is waiting anymore for anything... let’s get back to arguing about bottom brackets now eh?
    Denver, CO

  60. #160
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    “Even if it was true”? It’s a public forum search it out if you happen to care and obviously assume I would make it up (why? This is a MTB forum). My post is uncalled for but calling me a “streetnursingassistant” is ok? Ya ok... you must be a cop too. Stereotyping sucks doesn’t it?

    If you don’t think a large percentage of the (vocal) population dislike cops you must only watch Fox News or you’re a cop and stay in your cop bubble. For the record we’re all on the same side. Regarding what “everyone” knows, you’re not very aware of new active killer protocol then. No one is waiting anymore for anything... let’s get back to arguing about bottom brackets now eh?
    Okay, NOW this thread has digressed to the level of shit show.
    Unsubscribed.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,418
    too much butthurt. go back to this x-post- https://forums.mtbr.com/general-disc...g-1092075.html

  62. #162
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post

    I'm talking about your average chunky XC ride, where you climb everything you'll descend, and where said climbs feature lots of steep, sustained, chunky terrain where you're not going to be carrying momentum up anything, where in order to stay on the bike you're putting some power down while feathering a fine line, with a maxed heart rate, and sometimes with exposure as part of the deal. Ratcheting doesn't work here -- anyone that says or even implies it does doesn't understand the scenario.

    I'm not talking about 5 minutes of every ride (unless that ride is 7 minutes long...), I'm talking about ~90% of every ride.

    A too-low BB is a dealbreaker on these rides.

    Ok I will bite, with this question.

    Is that the designed purpose of the bikes you were testing? Or are you more interested in making a squared peg fit a round hole that you predetermined the size of said hole? Then saying that because a square peg does not fit the hole you want it to, that the peg that designed to be square needs to be round, instead of finding a round peg by design to fit the round hole?

  63. #163
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,037
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    New England may or may not be gnarlier than West (never ridden there) but I do know that videos can make the roughest trails look like flat dirt sidewalks.
    It's not about which one is gnarlier or has crazier terrain, everyone feels they live in a bubble with the most tech/hardest/tightest trails.

    I thing something that is often lost is how adaptable we are. If you've been riding with fast guys for say, 10, or 20 years, it's not like they just picked up and went 10mph faster when some stupid new tech or geometry came out. I will give a bit of a pass to suspension, because there is a line where functional suspension allows you to do just vs. stuff that makes you lose control the faster you go, but by and large, we are amazingly adaptable, to different pedals, different seats, different geometries, different travel, different size bars, different stems, etc. Sure, there are some advantages to some setups, but when you start looking at it myopic, thinking that you need to line up 30 different things "optimally" to find your "unicorn bike", I'd say only a couple large changes will really make any difference and all the small shit you obsess over doesn't mean anything.

    Enjoy what you have.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  64. #164
    www.ninjichor.com
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof View Post
    With you as far as hype and the (inevitable?) attacks on the credibility of this poster v. that one. On the other hand, IMO, these forums do tend to bring out information that is otherwise hard to figure out short of personally testing scads of bikes since most of don't have that opportunity or time or money or expertise to do that. So, when you are trying to narrow down the field, it is helpful to hear whether folks find a particular bike to be a good climber, or descender or both or neither; whether it is plush or not; whether or whether a bike has decent rear tire clearance; or whether the pivots hold up or whatever. It is also interesting to read posts from folks who understand suspension kinematics and try to learn from there.
    Learn anything from this thread?

    Did you let any of the poo-pooing and #metoo posts affect how you "narrow down" the field?

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    There was a thread a few weeks back where the posters had a “group epiphany “; they figured out that bikes built in a geographic region tended to be designed for that region, for example Transition is designed for Bellingham/BC type riding, Guerilla Gravity is designed for Rocky Mountain type riding, etc...

    I realize that’s not really an epiphany, more like a “no duh”, but it is a way to categorize a bike/mfg/tester.

    Mike rides the Rockies and the high desert, he lives in Grand Junction, so his rides are ledgey, bouldery, loose, chunder fests. If Mike is doing a bike review on his home turf, that should clue you in to his preferences and it’ll explain why some bikes faired better than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    Ok I will bite, with this question.

    Is that the designed purpose of the bikes you were testing? Or are you more interested in making a squared peg fit a round hole that you predetermined the size of said hole? Then saying that because a square peg does not fit the hole you want it to, that the peg that designed to be square needs to be round, instead of finding a round peg by design to fit the round hole?
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  66. #166
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    There was a thread a few weeks back where the posters had a “group epiphany “; they figured out that bikes built in a geographic region tended to be designed for that region, for example Transition is designed for Bellingham/BC type riding, Guerilla Gravity is designed for Rocky Mountain type riding, etc...

    I realize that’s not really an epiphany, more like a “no duh”, but it is a way to categorize a bike/mfg/tester.

    Mike rides the Rockies and the high desert, he lives in Grand Junction, so his rides are ledgey, bouldery, loose, chunder fests. If Mike is doing a bike review on his home turf, that should clue you in to his preferences and it’ll explain why some bikes faired better than others.
    Yes, I understand that. I also live and ride in the Rockies and I am sure we have ridden the same trails. With his home trails being a not very long car drive away. I was more stating that he listed a XC ride up and over chunky stuff as being his desired riding style. So with that being said, if he is testing enduro race bikes then they are not designed to do what he says he wants them to do. Hints the square peg to round hole idea I had stated. Just like someone complaining that head angles are too steep overall because they tested XC bikes at Keystone or Whistler. Just wondering why a blanket statement is made a across the board that BB are getting too low industry wide. I do understand he did say, in his opinion, which I take with a grain of salt because we do not ride the same, even if it is in the same locations. But some seem to think it is gospel. Anyone that races Enduro will tell you that racing enduro races in the Rockies or the few EWS courses I have done that pedaling up and over ledgey stuff is not a part of the ball game. Hell there is WAY more hike a bike then you can even imagine even with the "big boy pros". The goal is get to the top under your own power but save as much as you can on for the way down. Climbing up ledges and boulder fields is way down on the list. Everyone just gets off and walks.

    So I ask again, was the bottom bracket is too low statement based off testing a bike outside its designed parameters? Then making a blanket statement that the entire industry needs to change because a classification of the bike or travel range someone wants to use instead of looking at the design intentions of the bike not fitting ones personal preference.

    Hopefully I have worded the question in a way that people do not feel I am be a D*ck just trying to understand some of the blanket statements being made about the industry without knowing what all bikes were tested and the riding style of the person or people doing the testing. Reading a review about DH bikes from a road rider means nothing to me as well as reading a review of a XC bike from a 20 year old park rat. Either one is going to be heavy and climbs like shit or a flexy steep head angle cant go downhill to save its life. That is why I ask about blanket statements and "reviews" of peoples grading bikes outside of their design intentions based of personal bias. Im not questioning ones merit to review a bike, just wondering on what curve things are being graded on before blanket statements are made.

  67. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    I think the problem is we want our cake and to eat it too. One bike to rule them all is gonna be a big compromise, just like asking one rider to give you feedback on all aspects and uses of a bike.

    I lean toward slack, high bb bikes with long reach and big droppers cuz that's what I want for the riding I do most of the time... but there are days (yesterday) on my home track where I would have preferred a short travel play bike over my Smash.

    Mike likes what Mike likes, he got tapped for the review, so his opinions should be taken in that context.

    That said, I think quite a few "enduro" bikes work quite well for the riding he does, like my GG Smash, the Lenz, etc...

    So yeah, your bike need is racing enduro where you walk the bike and save energy, versus Mike wanting a bike for trying to make every move. Perhaps Mike is suggesting that they do not have to be mutually exclusive if you have a bike that can do both, ie high bb.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    Yes, I understand that. I also live and ride in the Rockies and I am sure we have ridden the same trails. With his home trails being a not very long car drive away. I was more stating that he listed a XC ride up and over chunky stuff as being his desired riding style. So with that being said, if he is testing enduro race bikes then they are not designed to do what he says he wants them to do. Hints the square peg to round hole idea I had stated. Just like someone complaining that head angles are too steep overall because they tested XC bikes at Keystone or Whistler. Just wondering why a blanket statement is made a across the board that BB are getting too low industry wide. I do understand he did say, in his opinion, which I take with a grain of salt because we do not ride the same, even if it is in the same locations. But some seem to think it is gospel. Anyone that races Enduro will tell you that racing enduro races in the Rockies or the few EWS courses I have done that pedaling up and over ledgey stuff is not a part of the ball game. Hell there is WAY more hike a bike then you can even imagine even with the "big boy pros". The goal is get to the top under your own power but save as much as you can on for the way down. Climbing up ledges and boulder fields is way down on the list. Everyone just gets off and walks.

    So I ask again, was the bottom bracket is too low statement based off testing a bike outside its designed parameters? Then making a blanket statement that the entire industry needs to change because a classification of the bike or travel range someone wants to use instead of looking at the design intentions of the bike not fitting ones personal preference.

    Hopefully I have worded the question in a way that people do not feel I am be a D*ck just trying to understand some of the blanket statements being made about the industry without knowing what all bikes were tested and the riding style of the person or people doing the testing. Reading a review about DH bikes from a road rider means nothing to me as well as reading a review of a XC bike from a 20 year old park rat. Either one is going to be heavy and climbs like shit or a flexy steep head angle cant go downhill to save its life. That is why I ask about blanket statements and "reviews" of peoples grading bikes outside of their design intentions based of personal bias. Im not questioning ones merit to review a bike, just wondering on what curve things are being graded on before blanket statements are made.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  68. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    Yes, I understand that. I also live and ride in the Rockies and I am sure we have ridden the same trails. With his home trails being a not very long car drive away. I was more stating that he listed a XC ride up and over chunky stuff as being his desired riding style. So with that being said, if he is testing enduro race bikes then they are not designed to do what he says he wants them to do. Hints the square peg to round hole idea I had stated. Just like someone complaining that head angles are too steep overall because they tested XC bikes at Keystone or Whistler. Just wondering why a blanket statement is made a across the board that BB are getting too low industry wide. I do understand he did say, in his opinion, which I take with a grain of salt because we do not ride the same, even if it is in the same locations. But some seem to think it is gospel. Anyone that races Enduro will tell you that racing enduro races in the Rockies or the few EWS courses I have done that pedaling up and over ledgey stuff is not a part of the ball game. Hell there is WAY more hike a bike then you can even imagine even with the "big boy pros". The goal is get to the top under your own power but save as much as you can on for the way down. Climbing up ledges and boulder fields is way down on the list. Everyone just gets off and walks.

    So I ask again, was the bottom bracket is too low statement based off testing a bike outside its designed parameters? Then making a blanket statement that the entire industry needs to change because a classification of the bike or travel range someone wants to use instead of looking at the design intentions of the bike not fitting ones personal preference.

    Hopefully I have worded the question in a way that people do not feel I am be a D*ck just trying to understand some of the blanket statements being made about the industry without knowing what all bikes were tested and the riding style of the person or people doing the testing. Reading a review about DH bikes from a road rider means nothing to me as well as reading a review of a XC bike from a 20 year old park rat. Either one is going to be heavy and climbs like shit or a flexy steep head angle cant go downhill to save its life. That is why I ask about blanket statements and "reviews" of peoples grading bikes outside of their design intentions based of personal bias. Im not questioning ones merit to review a bike, just wondering on what curve things are being graded on before blanket statements are made.
    I think your point is well made. If I was pushing the bike between stages, I'd want a lower bike. If i was riding everywhere for enjoyment I'd want the same bike but with a higher BB. My Riot and Wifes Process are higher. unfortunately the lines between enduro and trail are blurry with longer travel bikes. Maybe it would be wise to have 2 different models or a flip chip that moves up the BB 10mm.

  69. #169
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,381
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    So I ask again, was the bottom bracket is too low statement based off testing a bike outside its designed parameters?

    Is riding trail that's open to the public, uphill and down, somehow outside of a mountain bike's designed parameters now?

    I hadn't gotten that memo.

  70. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    It was the package insert that came with the short cranks, easy to miss

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Is riding trail that's open to the public, uphill and down, somehow outside of a mountain bike's designed parameters now?

    I hadn't gotten that memo.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  71. #171
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Is riding trail that's open to the public, uphill and down, somehow outside of a mountain bike's designed parameters now?

    I hadn't gotten that memo.
    No, but if you cannot understand what I am trying to say without being a smart ass then you clearly should not be doing a review on any bike but a small niche of bikes designed to how you want to ride.

    So from where I sit with 2019 bike reviews: Mikesee reviews are a waste of time to read because they cannot be objective to anything outside his narrow window of riding preferences.

  72. #172
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    It was the package insert that came with the short cranks, easy to miss
    Your starting to remind me of the Chiwawa barking behind a pitbull because you want the pitbull to think you are cool.

    I get he is your boy and all but pack mentality or ganging up to attempt to bully with a 2 Vs 1 thing for others to see as you pump up you chest is juvenile. Let alone a detriment to this site. By making people afraid to voice another opinion than someone goes against what this site should be about. Your post had nothing constructive to say. But to make Mike feel cool cause you got his back and show him you were tough and cool too while throwing out a quick jab at the people that tried to help remedy your problem by saying shorter cranks cut down on rock strikes. I would have hoped this car into life you would have moved past school yard bully tactics.

    Im done with this thread because clearly some of the people cannot move past 8th grade and have a discussion.

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Is riding trail that's open to the public, uphill and down, somehow outside of a mountain bike's designed parameters now?

    I hadn't gotten that memo.
    It can be but that's not a new thing.

  74. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    ..

    So from where I sit with 2019 bike reviews: Mikesee reviews are a waste of time to read because they cannot be objective to anything outside his narrow window of riding preferences.
    Actually I want to see riders reviewing bike with a clear understanding of their bias. The idea that reviewing enduro bikes only within the narrow confines of enudro and bike park is easy. But reviewing them in the context of general riding is actually better. I personally may not ride the same way Mike does, but why should he be forced to adapt his riding style and goals to the bike? Why not have the bike meet his needs?

    This what bugs me about most bike reviews. They can't seem to properly state their base persepctive and how the bike meets or does not meet that. Most reviews are so general to be useless. It "Climbs well" and "descends well", it is "playful" . WTF. How about I rode it on XYZ trail and it "it sucked to drag a 30lbs bike up that climb. it was heavy sloppy and I really had to work", "Then on DH it flow well, on chunk and the tech". There is no context to the reviews relative to how the bike works with or against the terrain it is being ridden on given how the rider is riding it. Some bikes really are good for 1 or 2 things and poor at everything else. Others may not shine in a certain bit of trail, but are very good in wider mix of trails. From smoother to rougher, climbing descending. fast/slow.


    My personal riding style is similar to Mike's on at least one level. I ride trails open to the public. Trails that are sometimes smooth, sometimes chunky. I like climbing and descending. I like going fast on flats and zipping through turns. Some days I want more chunk and tech sometimes I ride smooth trails with lots turns or steep climbs. Unlike Mike I race some times, but that is ok. I can see his perspective on simply riding the trails and terrain that is in front of you and your bike should be fun for you all over. Not just on 3 min descent.

    BTW.. I am considering replacements for my First generation Santa Cruz 5010 that I use for gnar riding. I am pretty sure I want 29" wheel for the better rock roll over. But I also need a bike that I can have fun climbing on. I earn my descents and don't just want to "drag my bike" up the climbs as I want to enjoy them too. So a super soft long travel bike is not going to cut it. Yet every review I see says how "well" thse 160mm 35lb bikes climb. Well I call BS on that. My 30lbs 125/130 bike climbs "ok" at best. Any yes pedal strikes are a concern as I ride in places with lots of rocks and any "gnar" bike has to be able to pedal through sh!t. If it is only good for railing flow trails it is useless to me. So far I have found nothing that seems interesting enough to make me move from current bike and even do a demo.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    No need to be a condescending dick.

    I think Mike is a good guy, I know him a bit, we’re not good buddies or anything.

    You on the other hand don’t know me and I don’t know you.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post
    Your starting to remind me of the Chiwawa barking behind a pitbull because you want the pitbull to think you are cool.

    I get he is your boy and all but pack mentality or ganging up to attempt to bully with a 2 Vs 1 thing for others to see as you pump up you chest is juvenile. Let alone a detriment to this site. By making people afraid to voice another opinion than someone goes against what this site should be about. Your post had nothing constructive to say. But to make Mike feel cool cause you got his back and show him you were tough and cool too while throwing out a quick jab at the people that tried to help remedy your problem by saying shorter cranks cut down on rock strikes. I would have hoped this car into life you would have moved past school yard bully tactics.

    Im done with this thread because clearly some of the people cannot move past 8th grade and have a discussion.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Joe, there are bikes that climb well and have long travel, I ride one now, but the only way you’ll find a bike that suits your needs is to demo. When I got my Smash, I didn’t expect it to be a good climber, nice surprise, but it’s also a firmer ride on little hits, so not a nice surprise. It’s all about compromise.

    Edit: Not picking on Joe here, but I do think it bears mentioning that all reviews/reviewers are biased. In Mike's case, his location and riding preferences are pretty clear. I get that folks want all the bikes on their short list to be reviewed in the place(s) that they ride, but that is just not practical, hence the need for demos or a willingness to but and sell bikes (an expensive way to demo).

    The shitshow of this thread is the personal attacks and personal criticisms that serve no purpose other than to demean the reviewer and his views. This is ugly and unnecessary, verging on TGResque.

    We can and should do better, there is no way that people would treat each other this way in real life. I like to imagine all of us, including Mike, sitting around a campfire having adult beverages after a long day in the saddle, talking about bikes and biking... what would you say to Mike, me, or others on this thread.

    Be this way ^

    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    BTW.. I am considering replacements for my First generation Santa Cruz 5010 that I use for gnar riding. I am pretty sure I want 29" wheel for the better rock roll over. But I also need a bike that I can have fun climbing on. I earn my descents and don't just want to "drag my bike" up the climbs as I want to enjoy them too. So a super soft long travel bike is not going to cut it. Yet every review I see says how "well" thse 160mm 35lb bikes climb. Well I call BS on that. My 30lbs 125/130 bike climbs "ok" at best. Any yes pedal strikes are a concern as I ride in places with lots of rocks and any "gnar" bike has to be able to pedal through sh!t. If it is only good for railing flow trails it is useless to me. So far I have found nothing that seems interesting enough to make me move from current bike and even do a demo.
    Last edited by Nurse Ben; 1 Week Ago at 11:07 AM.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    I am pretty sure I want 29" wheel for the better rock roll over. But I also need a bike that I can have fun climbing on. I earn my descents and don't just want to "drag my bike" up the climbs as I want to enjoy them too. So a super soft long travel bike is not going to cut it. Yet every review I see says how "well" thse 160mm 35lb bikes climb. Well I call BS on that. My 30lbs 125/130 bike climbs "ok" at best.
    So you just want to read reviews about bikes you aren't interested in that reaffirm what you already think about them? Why waste time explaining that 35lb enduro bikes don't climb as well as 25lb bikes every time you review one. I don't think reviewers should cater to people who aren't even considering the bike or people wanting to use it far outside its intended purpose (enduro bike on flat terrain or XC bike at DH park).

  78. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    So you just want to read reviews about bikes you aren't interested in that reaffirm what you already think about them? Why waste time explaining that 35lb enduro bikes don't climb as well as 25lb bikes every time you review one. I don't think reviewers should cater to people who aren't even considering the bike or people wanting to use it far outside its intended purpose (enduro bike on flat terrain or XC bike at DH park).
    BUT...
    I've (and others) have said in numerous threads: if the 150/130 (or 170/150) climbs as well as something with less travel...why wouldn't you buy the longer travel bike.

    I first recall these discussions popping up a few years ago when "modern geo" came to 29". Reviewers would comment, it really climbs like a bike with much less travel. But, when pressed, they'd admit: it doesn't really climb as well...but it does climb incredibly well for a "XXX"mm bike.

    But recently with some newer bikes (notably the SB130, Ripmo, and Offering) people are writing: it climbs as well...but when pressed they reply: no...it really does climb as well.

    On Pinkbike, I asked about Smuggler vs. Ripmo and at least one person replied that the Ripmo does climb better than the Smuggler. So...I don't need a ~150/130 bike, but if it is better climbing and descending, why wouldn't I???

    So I routinely read bike reviews (and demo bikes) with bigger numbers than my terrain would suggest..b/c you never know. Plus, I just like bikes.

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    There is a lot to "climbing" climbing what? Smooth dirt road to the DH trail? Steep techy climbs? Short step ledgy stuff? Nobody really seems to cover how these bikes climb. The reason is nobody seems to care about climbing.

    What I hear is always how well xx bike goes down and that you need more travel cause more travel is better and it climbs like a shorter travel bike. So what is a shorter travel bike these days? My 5010 is 125/130. Is that short travel? For me it is my "big bike". It is my Sedona gnar bike. My South Mtn National bike. It climbs "Ok" not great. My SS HT and FS Epic climb great. I want a 29er that climbs better than my 2013 5010 and descends better. Not possible? Reading all the reviews and feedback people would say yes and give me a long list of bikes. However I am less confident because few really describe how the bikes climb. I don't have time to test every single bike out there as I also need the right terrain to test. So far the 5010 climbs well enough and descends well enough, but it can get hung up on small ledges with the rear tire and descending has a 68 deg HA so is a little "steep". So I wonder for my use how much better the new bikes are. The thing I don't like is most still weigh 30lbs.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    There is a lot to "climbing" climbing what? Smooth dirt road to the DH trail? Steep techy climbs? Short step ledgy stuff? Nobody really seems to cover how these bikes climb. The reason is nobody seems to care about climbing.

    What I hear is always how well xx bike goes down and that you need more travel cause more travel is better and it climbs like a shorter travel bike. So what is a shorter travel bike these days? My 5010 is 125/130. Is that short travel? For me it is my "big bike". It is my Sedona gnar bike. My South Mtn National bike. It climbs "Ok" not great. My SS HT and FS Epic climb great. I want a 29er that climbs better than my 2013 5010 and descends better. Not possible? Reading all the reviews and feedback people would say yes and give me a long list of bikes. However I am less confident because few really describe how the bikes climb. I don't have time to test every single bike out there as I also need the right terrain to test. So far the 5010 climbs well enough and descends well enough, but it can get hung up on small ledges with the rear tire and descending has a 68 deg HA so is a little "steep". So I wonder for my use how much better the new bikes are. The thing I don't like is most still weigh 30lbs.
    Don't be obtuse about it:
    - Climbing is all of those things...but most reviews either 1) detail the type of trails they rode (and many include some sort of disclaimer like: if you're going up a smooth fireroad - look elsewhere, but that's not what the bike is for) and/or 2) the reader can look at where the bike is tested and, with little geographical knowledge, can figure out what type of terrain the tester was climbing (and descending).

    - it's pretty obvious what "shorter travel" is and I gave you one example: Transition's Smuggler. But you could add: Ibis Ripley LS, Evil Following, Spec SJ -ST, etcetcetc. And you can compare them to a new long travel bike...whether it's a SB130, Ripmo, Offering...or even longer travel Firebird29, Scott Ransom, SB150.

    By reading enough reviews, you can begin to get a picture of what a bike does/doesn't do well:

    i.e. Smuggler - cushy descents...climbs techy good, need switch for smooth fire roads. Better with different shock ad Fox34 isn't good enough for it. Only you can decide if flipping a switch and changing components is a deal-breaker.

    Yeti - the SB bikes riding characteristics are fantastic...but you might be left wanting with the bearing/play issue or that you have to re-glue the downtube protector and your bank account will be MUCH lighter...only you can decide if those issues are non-issues to you.

    Ibis - DW link climbs well...descends well. They're light...but not the most stout.

    But these are just general impressions and you're always gonna have to demo to know...you still need to demo OR hope you're lucky.

  81. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    2013 5010 size large: Reach 426mm, STA 73/HTA 68, travel 123/130 CS 435, BB Ht 334mm.

    2018 5010 size large: Reach 460, STA 75.2/HTA 65.5, travel 130/130, CS 425, BB Ht 334mm.

    Those are some big changes in my book, literally not even the same bike outside of the suspension design; assuming the suspension is still the same.

    I'd ride it

    So what do you want?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    There is a lot to "climbing" climbing what? Smooth dirt road to the DH trail? Steep techy climbs? Short step ledgy stuff? Nobody really seems to cover how these bikes climb. The reason is nobody seems to care about climbing.

    What I hear is always how well xx bike goes down and that you need more travel cause more travel is better and it climbs like a shorter travel bike. So what is a shorter travel bike these days? My 5010 is 125/130. Is that short travel? For me it is my "big bike". It is my Sedona gnar bike. My South Mtn National bike. It climbs "Ok" not great. My SS HT and FS Epic climb great. I want a 29er that climbs better than my 2013 5010 and descends better. Not possible? Reading all the reviews and feedback people would say yes and give me a long list of bikes. However I am less confident because few really describe how the bikes climb. I don't have time to test every single bike out there as I also need the right terrain to test. So far the 5010 climbs well enough and descends well enough, but it can get hung up on small ledges with the rear tire and descending has a 68 deg HA so is a little "steep". So I wonder for my use how much better the new bikes are. The thing I don't like is most still weigh 30lbs.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    BUT...
    I've (and others) have said in numerous threads: if the 150/130 (or 170/150) climbs as well as something with less travel...why wouldn't you buy the longer travel bike.
    They don't climb well out of the saddle, cumbersome at slow speeds, heavier, not as fun on tamer trails, little to no performance benefit until you reach a certain intensity level, etc. They might climb better than some shorter travel bikes but they don't climb as well as a really good climbing shorter travel bike. I've ridden enduro bikes that are perfectly fine as far as pedaling efficiency but still suck to ride on XC trails.

  83. #183
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    They don't climb well out of the saddle, cumbersome at slow speeds, heavier, not as fun on tamer trails, little to no performance benefit until you reach a certain intensity level, etc. They might climb better than some shorter travel bikes but they don't climb as well as a really good climbing shorter travel bike. I've ridden enduro bikes that are perfectly fine as far as pedaling efficiency but still suck to ride on XC trails.
    That's your opinion and it's a terrific opinion -- it really is. But it's yours. There are other equally terrific opinions that are different. Mine, for instance.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    That's your opinion
    Yeah, he asked.

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    Don't be obtuse about it:
    - Climbing is all of those things...but most reviews either 1) detail the type of trails they rode (and many include some sort of disclaimer like: if you're going up a smooth fireroad - look elsewhere, but that's not what the bike is for) and/or 2) the reader can look at where the bike is tested and, with little geographical knowledge, can figure out what type of terrain the tester was climbing (and descending).
    Climbing a fire road not the same as climbing single track and not the same as steep tighty techy climbs. Not the same as climbing up a 13% grade with loose rocks. Not the same as 6% grade with step ups. They could come test in Phx and unless I know the trail I won't know what they are climbing for certain.

    As for short travel. I consider short travel 100mm. Yesterday I rode my Rigid 29+ down stuff some say you need a 150mm bike. I am by no means a super skilled rider, but my perspective is different. So if you say a 150 mm bike climbs like a 130mm bike I still go WTF? I would rather have a 130mm bike that climes like 100mm bike confirmed by someone that actually climbs fast. I know for certain my 125/130 bikes climbs no where near like my 100mm bike or HT. That is non issue on smooth fire roads since I can just go a bit slower. It does get annoying on single track as often the best descents come after the toughest climbs.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    2013 5010 size large: Reach 426mm, STA 73/HTA 68, travel 123/130 CS 435, BB Ht 334mm.

    2018 5010 size large: Reach 460, STA 75.2/HTA 65.5, travel 130/130, CS 425, BB Ht 334mm.

    Those are some big changes in my book, literally not even the same bike outside of the suspension design; assuming the suspension is still the same.

    I'd ride it

    So what do you want?
    Well I ride a large 5010 right now with a 50mm stem. This really 1 frame size up for my 5'8" height. The numbers you listed are different for the new bike and the slacker HA should help with descending slightly, but what about climbing? I can't justify 3-5k for going down only a tiny bit better and still climbing the same. Plus I know I want 29" wheels for the better rollover. 27.5 just gets hung up on stuff more. So that rules out the new 5010.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  87. #187
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,138
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    The thing I don't like is most still weigh 30lbs.
    It's too bad "weight" isn't expressed as a percentage of body weight to bike weight. Personally I consider a 30# bike light. For perspective, I'm 6'2" tall and weigh 200#.

    200# rider, 32# bike = 16% (Me)
    150# rider, 27# bike = 18% (Somebody else. 5# lighter bike, worse weight ratio)
    80# rider, 24# bike = 30% (Some poor kid)
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,713
    my HT and XC FS bike ares 22-23lbs. So 30lbs feels like a boat anchor when riding back to back. 27lbs and would feel alot better. Even going downhill the lightness you feel in 22-23lbs bike is so refreshing compared to 30lbs sled. Just being to flick and pop it off little rocks and logs. Of course with more travel and robustness comes more weight so that weight any "Big bike" is going to more than light XC bike.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Climbing a fire road not the same as climbing single track and not the same as steep tighty techy climbs. Not the same as climbing up a 13% grade with loose rocks. Not the same as 6% grade with step ups. They could come test in Phx and unless I know the trail I won't know what they are climbing for certain.

    As for short travel. I consider short travel 100mm. Yesterday I rode my Rigid 29+ down stuff some say you need a 150mm bike. I am by no means a super skilled rider, but my perspective is different. So if you say a 150 mm bike climbs like a 130mm bike I still go WTF? I would rather have a 130mm bike that climes like 100mm bike confirmed by someone that actually climbs fast. I know for certain my 125/130 bikes climbs no where near like my 100mm bike or HT. That is non issue on smooth fire roads since I can just go a bit slower. It does get annoying on single track as often the best descents come after the toughest climbs.
    Again: I understand that that different types of climbing are different...yet, most reviewers point out where they are and what they are doing. Even the most elementary reviews on MTBR usually start with "I demo'd the X- bike at the Y-bike demo," so you know the location and .5 seconds of googling can tell you what the type of terrain it is. They also, generally, point out what the bike excels at and where it lacks.

    Also, you never "need" a 150 bike. But a skilled rider on a trail better suited to a 150 bike will be faster on a 150 bike than a single speed, rigid 29"...it's just how it works.

    I'm not sure what your point about the 150 bike climbing like a 130 or a 130 climbing like a 100. I guess: don't buy a 150 b/c, clearly you don't want one...regardless of how well it workd. And don't get a 130 bike that either 1) doesn't climb like a 100 or 2) climbs like a 100, but only confirmed by someone who rides slow.

    Like I wrote above (and others in tens, if not hundreds, of other threads): reviews will give you a general idea of how a bike (or in lots of cases, entire bike lines) behave, but only demoing can tell you if a bike is for you.

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Actually I want to see riders reviewing bike with a clear understanding of their bias. The idea that reviewing enduro bikes only within the narrow confines of enudro and bike park is easy. But reviewing them in the context of general riding is actually better. I personally may not ride the same way Mike does, but why should he be forced to adapt his riding style and goals to the bike? Why not have the bike meet his needs?
    So you don't see a problem with an XC racer doing a ride review on a Santa Cruz V10 or Aaron Gwinn reviewing the specialized Epic? You lost me....

    Different bikes excel in different genres (as they are designed to do). As bikes become more "specialized" I think XC, Trail, Enduro, DH, Fat, Gravel, Road, Endurance Road, Crit, all have their places and should be professionally reviewed by people who excel in those respective riding genres. An endurance road rider reviewing an enduro bike would be useless to me as an enduro racer.

    Yes that 35lb enduro bike probably does climb great in the context of it being designed with a downhill bias as an ENDURO bike. That seems painfully obvious to me... It's being compared against other bikes in it's class. If you read the review as "it climbs great" and expect it to climb as well as a short travel XC bike that weighs 5lbs less that's on you not the reviewer.

    There's not a pedal bike on the market that is designed solely for "railing flow trails". Pedal strikes are skills issue period. Flame away!
    Denver, CO

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by hitechredneck View Post

    I get he is your boy and all but pack mentality or ganging up to attempt to bully with a 2 Vs 1 thing for others to see as you pump up you chest is juvenile.

    It's not a 2 vs 1 thing. I think I've gotten about a dozen positive reputation comments from this thread I think it's more the vocal minority...
    Denver, CO

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    So you don't see a problem with an XC racer doing a ride review on a Santa Cruz V10 or Aaron Gwinn reviewing the specialized Epic? You lost me....

    Different bikes excel in different genres (as they are designed to do). As bikes become more "specialized" I think XC, Trail, Enduro, DH, Fat, Gravel, Road, Endurance Road, Crit, all have their places and should be professionally reviewed by people who excel in those respective riding genres. An endurance road rider reviewing an enduro bike would be useless to me as an enduro racer.
    Yeah, I thought this was common sense and I'm surprised people are arguing against the concept. At the very least reviewer should explain the situation if they're reviewing a bike outside of their expertise or if they're using it outside the intended or primary terrain/use.

  93. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    "I bought this $11,000 Sagan Edition Roubaix and I can't believe I snapped it in half on D1 last weekend in Whistler! What a POS!"
    Denver, CO

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Add an angleset to help you get a better idea of whether a slacker HTA is for you, might even be enough to make your existing frame ride better. Then look for a frame that has geo similar to your 5010 with a slacker STA and a steeper STA.

    What I find challenging is "crossing over" from one suspension design to another. For me, I like DW for all around use, cruising, small bump sensitivity and general riding comfort, but I don't feel DW works well for climbing and tech. I like the Foes suspension, Lenz, and GG suspensions for all conditions other than small bump sensitivity.

    So my answer is to ride a Smash for everything "big", then get something short and cushy for flow and XC.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Well I ride a large 5010 right now with a 50mm stem. This really 1 frame size up for my 5'8" height. The numbers you listed are different for the new bike and the slacker HA should help with descending slightly, but what about climbing? I can't justify 3-5k for going down only a tiny bit better and still climbing the same. Plus I know I want 29" wheels for the better rollover. 27.5 just gets hung up on stuff more. So that rules out the new 5010.
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Pedal strikes are skills issue period. Flame away!
    Wrong. Also, improper grammar and spelling are intelligence issue period.

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,198
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Wrong. Also, improper grammar and spelling are intelligence issue period.
    Hah! Like I said... skills issue 100%. Sorry if my iPhone Skillz oFfEnD yOu!
    Denver, CO

  97. #197
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Hah! Like I said... skills issue 100%. Sorry if my iPhone Skillz oFfEnD yOu!
    Now that you've bragged about getting a dozen plus reps for your mad skills & superior intellect as expressed within this thread, I imagine there are some who're considering neg repping you for your swaggering eminence, if not simply because they disagree with you.

    I am, ever since you neg repped me a few months ago for what you claimed was a similar infraction.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,004
    Pinkbike came out with a review of the new Bronson and I think it's a pretty good short review of the bike. They review it in the appropriate setting. They seem capable of riding it like it's meant to be ridden. They talk about different aspects of how it climbs and in the context of what terrain and relative to it's travel. They even clarify that it climbs well but it's still a 150mm travel bike, you're not going to mistake it for a super efficient cross country bike.



  99. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Hah! Like I said... skills issue 100%. Sorry if my iPhone Skillz oFfEnD yOu!
    Your iPhone Skillz don't offend me at all. I am embarrassed for you, though.

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Wow! A dozen in one thread, that’s gotta be some kind of record ... or utter bs.

    I’m sure MTBR is so proud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    It's not a 2 vs 1 thing. I think I've gotten about a dozen positive reputation comments from this thread I think it's more the vocal minority...
    Lrg GG Pedalhead 29/27+
    XMed GG Smash 29/27+
    Lrg Devinci Hendrix 27+ (Loaner)
    Pivot Shuttle 27+ (wife)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1 Day Ago, 01:05 PM
  2. 2019 Anthem 1 (27.5) vs 2019 Spark 950
    By squidattack in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-07-2018, 11:21 AM
  3. stump jumper 2019 expert or SC Bronson v3 s 2019
    By coming_in_hot in forum 27.5
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2018, 09:49 AM
  4. To sit or not to sit?
    By paulney in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07-09-2015, 10:25 PM
  5. PVD Testing...testing...testing
    By pvd in forum Frame Building
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 11:56 AM

Members who have read this thread: 984

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.