Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[evdog]

counted off 150 pumps (yea, I knew how much it needed at that point) unthread the mother fucking thread on chuck along with the valve core. That changed the mood of the ride.

That reminds me I need to put a spare shock pump in my truck. Decided to add some air to the rear shock before a ride recently. Noticed air leaking out of the pump hose. As kept pumping the hose popped right off the pump. Lost about half the air in the shock. Fuck.

[Dantheman]

It was about time for this to come around again. It seems that properly tightening the core in a valve stem is just too complicated for some folks. Those people should not buy Lezyne pumps.

The rest of us will continue to enjoy their great design and excellent function.

Also, you don't need to screw the pump head on super tight. Core capture is usually the result of overtightening the head.

I pulled my micro drive HV out on a ride last summer with someone who had never used one. He was blown away by how much faster and easier it was than a normal mini pump.

[jackstraw]

Also, you don't need to screw the pump head on super tight. Core capture is usually the result of overtightening the head.

I pulled my micro drive HV out on a ride last summer with someone who had never used one. He was blown away by how much faster and easier it was than a normal mini pump.

That's interesting and makes sense. I have the little stans? tool to crank down the core and I have unscrewed it with the pump. Never thought to not crank the pump on so tight. Doh!

[toast2266]

It was about time for this to come around again.

It's one of my favorites.

The mountain bike industry is thick with people who will defend dumb designs with nominal upsides and multiple obvious downsides. (See also: centerlock rotors, shimano brakes).

Everything is nice about the lezynes aside from the head though. Someone could make their millions selling aftermarket heads that don't suck.

[jamal]

I have a silca chuck on my lezyne pump because i very quickly realized that threading it on and off to add air was annoying bullshit. I suppose a rant could be that the chuck cost the same as the whole pump. Also the hose barb adapter is a separate part.

[jackstraw]

It's one of my favorites.

The mountain bike industry is thick with people who will defend dumb designs with nominal upsides and multiple obvious downsides. (See also: centerlock rotors, shimano brakes).

Everything is nice about the lezynes aside from the head though. Someone could make their millions selling aftermarket heads that don't suck.

Shimano brakes!!! [emoji3]

[evdog]

I 100% support Trailforks documenting trails, whether ridable or not

I do as well. That's not the issue here.

As I said earlier they are adding trails with inaccurate info - mainly Wilderness trails that they are labelling as open to bikes - like San Gorgonio. The charter bus load of Korean hikers will cheer you on but you'll get flogged by the overzealous volunteer wilderness ranger. I've encountered bikers and especially e-bikers using incorrect descriptions like this as to justify riding where they are not allowed. Not good when TF staff have info readily available to mark the trails correctly.

Here's the Firebreak example. I was doing a ride nearby last weekend and poked my head up this "trail". You can see people have walked up it a bit in a few spots - maybe hunters or people just looking for somewhere to take a shit. But it's a legit fire break, there is no trail here. If you don't believe me take a road trip and try to walk it. There are firebreaks like this all over Socal mountains. This particular one is short and doesn't go anywhere that will get you in trouble, but some of them drop into deep canyons. I've seen a few "trails" added that could really get people in trouble looking for a route that doesn't exist. And these aren't simply trails that used to exist and became overgrown.


Trail conditions is a different issue. On the web version trails can display the statement "No description has been added yet for this trail" and it is easy to see whether or not any condition reports, comments, photos or ridelogs have been added. On the app, the "No description" statement does not appear and you will only see reports, photos or ridelogs if you have cell service. So a trail could have those but you're SOL if you don't have service. It would make things a lot clearer for Trailforks to auto-populate a description (that shows up on the app) clearly stating "This trail has no activity. Conditions are unknown" or "The last recorded activity for this trail was MM/YY" if it's been over a year or so. The last 5 or so condition reports and ridelogs should be included in the Region updates so you can access them offline as well. At least then you can make better decisions about riding the trail or not. At the end of the day this is a good reason to leave adding trails to the locals. Individuals who add trails are going to add a description most of the time. When TF Admins add something, it should get have to get approved by the local admin just like when regular users add something - to verify the info added is ok.

I don't think there's any trailforks staff actually adding trails, it's just members. There's definitely an annoying amount of shit around here that either doesn't exist or isn't ridable. Anyone else can go in and edit and change things, and i'm a local admin so i can do that and delete stuff without even needing approval, but lately i haven't really felt like spending my free time doing stuff like that. Our local mtb group could spend some time on it if they wanted though.

I think you're wrong. Check out the two examples above and look who they were added by. User profile has a tag that says "Map Team" and she's listed as an admin for Canada, USA and California.

The other one I've seen a bunch is "Todd" from Pleasant Grove, Utah. "Trailforks Global Admin" His profile says he's added 28,000 trails. That is some serious dedication if you're not being paid for it.

[zion zig zag]

That's interesting and makes sense. I have the little stans? tool to crank down the core and I have unscrewed it with the pump. Never thought to not crank the pump on so tight. Doh!

My valve stem cover also tightens the core. Got it off Amazon and it’s been handy.

[zion zig zag]

https://www.amazon.com/Granite-Juicy...a-758759430921


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Dantheman]

It's one of my favorites.

The mountain bike industry is thick with people who will defend dumb designs with nominal upsides and multiple obvious downsides. (See also: centerlock rotors, shimano brakes).

Everything is nice about the lezynes aside from the head though. Someone could make their millions selling aftermarket heads that don't suck.

I definitely won't defend the head design. It's worth the hassle if you actually have to pump up a tire.

[VTskibum]

The threads inside the BB spindle or the crank puller threads in the crank?
If it’s in the BB spindle, 1. That’s crazy, not sure I’ve ever seen that 2. Just buy a new square taper BB.
If it’s the crank puller threads in the crank (they surround the dust cover of the crank bolt), you’re in for it. Never seen those helicoiled…not sure that’s a thing. I have managed to jam through enough threads to get purchase and get the crank off, then replaced it. Have also failed at getting thread purchase and had to get medieval with some hacksaws, Dremels, hammers and weird old wedge tools designed for this heinous task.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Crank puller threads, little bit on both sides. I may try and old cover and just try to force it in as a semi tap. If that doesn’t work, hacksaw to the square taper I guess. Have a new pair of crank arms to go with this BB if I can save it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dee Hubbs]

Crank puller threads, little bit on both sides. I may try and old cover and just try to force it in as a semi tap. If that doesn’t work, hacksaw to the square taper I guess. Have a new pair of crank arms to go with this BB if I can save it.

Take an old cover and cut some channels into it to make a thread chase. It should be enough to clean up those few threads.
I made some pedal thread chases a few years ago and they work great.
I was googling a photo for reference and saw a good YouTube.

[rideit]

Hot tip for you guys that encounter a square taper Crankarm that needs to come off with no possibility of a crank puller…just take out the bolt and go for some urban riding with a few curb drops, wheelies, etc.
It will come off eventually, I guarantee you of that.

[jm2e]

Follow up. Assumed wife’s tire was losing air because I somehow fucked up the tape. I use 1” Tessa type tape from Amazon because I can get 60yd for like $8 bucks. Works for me because I can’t stomach $5/wheel, especially when I’m not perfect and redo a lot of tape jobs. But my overlapping double wrap dose make it a little more vulnerable to fucking up while installing a tight tire.
Anyway, I get in there and see nothing but perfect beautiful intact tape! Fuck me!
Cosh Core valve looks like it’s stuffed way the fuck in there, which makes me think it must be making a good deal. Regardless, I swap it with a new valve and BOOM, the leaks are gone! Holds pressure for hours. All this because the rubber grommet/plug has deteriorated!
About to head to bed, I decide to hose the fucker down with soapy water so I can sleep better.

Air is actually coming out around the core, whether it’s screwed in or not. Can’t catch a break with this shit! FML.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[rideit]

You try a new valve core?
They actually make extra-long cores that might have more purchase.

[XXX-er]

I wanted to go to a smaller chain ring on my 5.5 Yeti so I got the Race face affect crank arm off the spindle by holding the bike off the ground and taping on the spindle with a ball peen, it didn't take much and I managed to do it solo

[smmokan]

How is Trailforks data (climbing/descending, not mileage) so far off from reality? For both the individual Ride Logs and the trail data itself, the vertical is typically off by anywhere from 20-50% if you compare it to the Strava data. We rode a trail yesterday where TF claimed 7' of climbing, and it was easily 200'+. I've seen individual rides where TF claimed 5000' of climbing on a route, only to see the actual climbing be closer to 3000'. They have to know by now it's fucked.

[toast2266]

How is Trailforks data (climbing/descending, not mileage) so far off from reality? For both the individual Ride Logs and the trail data itself, the vertical is typically off by anywhere from 20-50% if you compare it to the Strava data. We rode a trail yesterday where TF claimed 7' of climbing, and it was easily 200'+. I've seen individual rides where TF claimed 5000' of climbing on a route, only to see the actual climbing be closer to 3000'. They have to know by now it's fucked.

Usually TF over reports compared to strava. Strava only logs a vertical change if it's greater than 30'. TF logs any vertical change that's greater than 6" (I believe).

So TF will show vert on a flat trail with jumps in it, whereas strava will not. I find that the rollier the ride is, the greater the discrepancy between the two apps. If it's just one long, steady climb to a long steady descent, they'll usually be pretty close.

Both strava and trailforks also build elevation profiles based on their maps. Their map says that your GPS data point at point X on the map has an elevation of Y. String all the data points together and you have your elevation profile. I've noticed in a few places locally that trailforks' topography is off a bit. The map thinks I'm off the side of a ridge when I'm actually standing on top of it. The lat and long are correct, but the topographic profile of the ridge is wrong on their map.

[jackstraw]

How is Trailforks data (climbing/descending, not mileage) so far off from reality? For both the individual Ride Logs and the trail data itself, the vertical is typically off by anywhere from 20-50% if you compare it to the Strava data. We rode a trail yesterday where TF claimed 7' of climbing, and it was easily 200'+. I've seen individual rides where TF claimed 5000' of climbing on a route, only to see the actual climbing be closer to 3000'. They have to know by now it's fucked.

Someone posted the difference in the way they receive data for the calculation. Not sure if it was in here or somewhere else.
TF always shows more vert than Strava for me. TF had 2009' and Strava 1772' on the ride I just looked at.

Edit ^ ha!

[VTskibum]

Take an old cover and cut some channels into it to make a thread chase. It should be enough to clean up those few threads.
I made some pedal thread chases a few years ago and they work great.
I was googling a photo for reference and saw a good YouTube.

Sweet, just ordered a cheap puller hopefully will get it sorted in a few days.

[Roxtar]

Lezyne pump heads, the new

flats v. clipless
Stans v. orange seal
silent v. loud hubs
tech v. flow
bar thickness
wheelsize


I wish some marketeer could decide for me what I like.

What? no queso v. drip lube?

[Cocximus]

Does anyone have valve core torque specs?

[Touring_Sedan]

Does anyone have valve core torque specs?

I only use my $600 Snap On torque wrench to properly seat my valve cores to 43.5 in/lb.

[panchosdad]

Usually TF over reports compared to strava. Strava only logs a vertical change if it's greater than 30'. TF logs any vertical change that's greater than 6" (I believe).

So TF will show vert on a flat trail with jumps in it, whereas strava will not. I find that the rollier the ride is, the greater the discrepancy between the two apps. If it's just one long, steady climb to a long steady descent, they'll usually be pretty close.

Both strava and trailforks also build elevation profiles based on their maps. Their map says that your GPS data point at point X on the map has an elevation of Y. String all the data points together and you have your elevation profile. I've noticed in a few places locally that trailforks' topography is off a bit. The map thinks I'm off the side of a ridge when I'm actually standing on top of it. The lat and long are correct, but the topographic profile of the ridge is wrong on their map.

30' seem pretty coarse, while 6" seems insanely detailed, like rolling over a rock. Those little ups and downs add up though.

[skaredshtles]

How is Trailforks data (climbing/descending, not mileage) so far off from reality? For both the individual Ride Logs and the trail data itself, the vertical is typically off by anywhere from 20-50% if you compare it to the Strava data. We rode a trail yesterday where TF claimed 7' of climbing, and it was easily 200'+. I've seen individual rides where TF claimed 5000' of climbing on a route, only to see the actual climbing be closer to 3000'. They have to know by now it's fucked.

Would it surprise you to know that NEITHER are particularly accurate? TBH, I don't think my Garmin GPS is very accurate either...