Printable View
yep, and then the little trail poop fairies pick them up for these slobs and they keep doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada1
Everytime I hear this excuse by poop baggers is that, "oh, I'll come back around on this trail and pick them up on my way back to the trailhead." Yeah right.
My 6 year old and I were out walking the puppy, kept come bag along the poop bags.
She asked why people just left the plastic bags. When pressed she answered st least don’t bag the poop so it will decompose. 6 yrs old and she knows better. Most people should be purged.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Shimano HG601 11 speed chain gets rusts spots after leaving my bike outside in some rain for a day. It only had a few rides on it so original lube should have still been on it. My kmc cheappie on my commuter gets lube twice a year, stays in water, slush and lots of salt all winter and still looks good.
This drives me insane. People who do this go an extra step to be more of an asshole. A pile of shit in a plastic bag is worse than a pile of shit on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada1
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
You know what drives me kray kray? Corner cuts, cheater lines, go arounds, and strava. Keep single track single. If you blame a trail for being too tight, twisty, techy, slow, and not flowy enough for your plastic 150mm travel 66 degree HA long low "trail" droppah post wonder bike, then keep practicing till you suck less and stay on the trail. If you can't ride a feature then walk it. Don't make a dumbed down go around.
Inside every biker there's a hiker.
I'd like to rant about people who don't understand that cutting inside lines on trails has nothing to do with strava, nothing to do with lacking skills, and has everything to do with poorly routed trails and maintaining momentum :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MrMan
Loves me a sneaky inside line
I think I'm supposed to demean your bike handling skills and go off on a phone app at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by grinch
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/74/740d9...173a09f83c.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by MrMan
Ha. Ha.:biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Haaa, I know when I'm out of my league. I go slow thru those sneaky insiders......only to keep the tires on though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
I'm super pissed that the bike makers seem to be backing away from the whole plus tire thing, I was thinking about buying a plus bike but now I'm worried they won't be supported in a couple years. Big fat tires are the coolest thing ever, 3.0" fo lyfe.
They're not really backing off but they do seem to think that people want 2.6 rather than 2.8<>3.0. The bikes will be able to run those tire sizes though and the tire companies are adding more models in those sizes so I wouldn't worry about availability going forward.
The beauty of getting a frame that fits 27.5+ is it will still fit 29ers and regular 27.5 with just just minor changes in geo and BB height. Companies making frames that fit multiple wheel sizes is the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny Snow
^ Yup 148 or 157 rear spacing with shortish chainstays make for good climbers and open the door for multiple wheel and tire size choices.
2.6" is just a normal fat tire. I want Plus. These bike makers can't decide what's good and offer it to the public. I bet by the end of 2018 they'll be trying to bring back 26" because they'll be claiming it's "more fun" to "handle" a bike than to ride a plus bike like a hack.
Multiple wheel sizes are the future in the same way that super-adjustable geometry and leverage ratios was the future back in 2002.Quote:
Originally Posted by HankScorpio
And then everyone realized that making a bike that had a bazillion different configurations just meant that the bike kinda sucked in all of them. So they went back to bikes with 1, or maybe 2 configuration options. I predict the same will happen with wheels. Bikes will be designed around a particular wheel size in mind. Sure, you'll still be able to fuck around with it and change things if you want, but the bike won't ride as well. The geometry will be fucked up, and the linkage kinematics will be off.
Only crazy people who live in their mom's basement and have never known the touch of a woman have multiple wheels for a bike.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
Jong Snow - plus tires suck. Stop whining.
No way man, they look awesome while being less slow than a fat bike. That's what they said in the shop anyway. 100% win in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
Except for Rocky Mountain, who have kinda nailed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
No no no :nonono2: For all of the choices that I had this year the steel hardtail plus bike with the 3.0 rubber is the one that came out to play 95% of the time. Next year I hope to have a couple of choices of plus bikes to ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
What are you thinking of exactly? When you talk about multiple leverage ratios I think specialized and intense (like 2001-2004ish?). Both of which did a pretty good job of messing with leverage and travel ratios that worked out pretty well. Then yeah now there's rocky mountain which looks legit and I can tell you from experience the guerilla gravity stuff works.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
Multi-Set-Up bikes are for people who see themselves as being ready for the cutting edge, but aren't brave enough to commit to just jumping in. The couch shredders theorize how often they'll fiddle with their geo settings and swap out wheels for the perfect ride on any given day. In reality, the shit gets fiddled with during the first week of riding then stays put until all the options are old and irrelevant.
In other words, Multi-Set-Up bikes are the future and they're here to stay. It's all marketing driven, and money makes industry.
x1000Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
#stayonthetrail #keepsingletracksingle #ifyoudidntbuilditdonotalteritQuote:
Originally Posted by jm2e
Tourism as a major part of any economic plan.
seems to work for a lot of places, including a few in VT. I heard hermit life is way more enjoyable in Maine anyways
I was mostly thinking Intense. There's a Jeff Steber interview floating around somewhere that I can't be bothered to find that explained why they went away from offering bikes with shitloads of configuration options. And it was basically that, while there were some setup combinations that were great, there were lots of possible combinations that were terrible. And he was seeing way too many people set their bikes up in the terrible combinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
I also think the newer iterations of this idea (Rocky and GG) are offering much more subtle changes, so it's harder to land on a terrible one. Some of the old intenses could make pretty significant changes in geometry, leverage ratio, and travel, and there were definitely configuration options where, if you were running it that way, it really just meant that you bought the wrong bike.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Some of the uzzi iterations for sure (38lb 5" travel bike? sweet). But the m1s I thought were pretty legit for making the thing more/less progressive. Shit, I wish my v10 had that option to be honest. Horses for courses kind of stuff.
Also, my average after work trail ride isn't exactly porc rim/downievile/monarch crest. So changing wheels and/or some travel/leverage is something I've often done when there's the option. Pedal and zoom setup vs. crush the earth setup.
But when you make a bike like the 951, you don't really have a leg to stand on, telling customers that THEY don't know what they're doing. :D
You gots the brokenrecorditis. I can't speak to the Rocky Mountain, but the "modes" on the Megatrail all ride well, and are useful, and are noticeably different. I changed it regularly, sometimes mid-ride. That's the closest to a one-bike-to-rule-them-all that I've ridden. You should ride one, it might change your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jm2e
Ha! The 2.8 is just ok. I'll take a 2.3 any day over it unless it's wet or maybe a little snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Yeah, and don't fucking dumb down a tech area or braid shit to go around a difficult line.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMan
I'm more with jm2e. I fiddle a little bit when I get a bike, but then I pretty much leave it. I don't like making geometry changes, because then I have to get used to the bike in the new setting. And I don't really like travel adjustments because I don't see much use for them. And leverage ratio changes are ok in theory, but any significant change is going to screw up the shock tune. Or if I have a more adjustable shock, it means I'll have to fuss around with the settings. I think the main reason Rocky's system is good is because the changes are pretty subtle. But still, those are changes that I'll do once and then leave it. I'd be just as happy having a bike that had the right settings in the first place and not fucking around with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Never rode a 951 though. What's wrong with that thing? Other than it seems like they break a lot.
For me it's totally not about sluggish or any of that because not matter how I play it it's me that's the slug. I like to ride slow and just enjoy where I'm at so that's what I do. Big gooey rubber makes that easier, I don't have to be quite so particular about lines taken, traction is phenomenal and I can ride a ht and have just a bit of cush in the rear while maintaining the simplicity I crave. After riding yesterday I noticed that I had a 3rd best time for me on a particular segment that I love and looked at the leaderboard and realized that I was more than twice the time of the fast riders. For a split second it bugged me but then I realized that they probably didn't see the owls nest or the deer standing 4 feet off the side of the trail just watching me ride by or get to appreciate the golden hour light because they had their heads down and were pounding it out. I'm good with slow :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
Really like the 150touch higher bb/165 low slung option on the megatrail. Partly because I've sold my dh bike. Mega in 165 w a 180 fork would be fine up the fsr's to the dh trails. Throw it in 150 and I'd take it on a few of the alpine rides. Looks like a fairly quick swap.
Bit of a thread drift though, it looks like a small megatrail would fit very close to a medium patrol/scout. Looking at swapping my rune frame for either megatrail or a patrol(maybe old stock if there's a sale) to compliment my scout. Really looking at the megatrail most though but wondering what size
Definitely size down with GG bikes. Medium is everybody else's large, etc. They did that intentionally so that medium is centered on the most common height range...or something like that.
Pinkbike being stupid again:
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/riding...s-opinion.html
Author does not consider that suspension of the early to mid 90's was total garbage and no real advantage. Suspension wasn't really worth having until the Marzocchi Bombers came out around '97. The rest of the industry didn't really catch up with Marzocchi until they offshored their production in '08 and their quality tanked.
These days, how many people are riding rigid, vs. riding Rockshox Mag 20's or original Manitou's?
http://www.bikemag.com/gear-features...chi-bomber-z1/
Ok thanks. Thought maybe I was missing something. Almost every measurement on the small is very close to my medium scout. Scout fits me so well. Same SO is awesome considering the travel difference. Similar bb height is a bit worrisome. The low bb is one thing I like about the scout but I have run that chainring a ground more than a few times. With an extra 40mm travel out back that's sure to happen even more. Might be ok for my usage in the 165 mode and then higher in the 150 for that usage. Makes sense in theory I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by bagtagley