Yeah, funny how an engine makes a difference in how easy it is to move a motorcycle...
No, I've ridden a sunday. the headangle on my canfield the way I had it setup was about 64'. I liked where it was in most situations. And really, the headangle on the sunday isn't bad. though I know a few tricks i'm going to use to get it just a tad slacker.
Jeff's right, you don't notice the weight on the rl9 at all.....sully was kind enough to let me rip one for a day on whistler during crankworx and I was very VERY impressed. It rides so light that I couldn't beleive that it was as heavy as it was. It loves to be popped off the smallest of lips and I found myself doubling up every little ripple in the trail I could, it's super snappy and fun. On top of that it sticks to the ground like glue (when you don't want to be popping off stuff) and their was pretty much zero feedback at the pedals when the suspension was cycling in the rought stuff whilst pedalling. It was also super confidence inspiring in the corners, prdictable breaking points in the loose stuff, awesome awesome ride......I was feeling fast this year, and a friend I ride with a lot was usually pretty close behind, he rides an rl9 too.....we got to the bottom after a couple of laps and he commented on how much faster I was riding on the rl9 over my bb7......
Where? Ive only seen a handful of F1's and none of them broken
Can this be interpreted as Lars is doing something different this year?
No, Lars has been riding a white Sunday frame that he's posted pictures in the DH thread and PNW thread about posting your rides. It's all white with red decals. The frame technically belongs to Todd at Ironhorse, but I'm trying to get my hands on it as soon as the 2007 Fluidride Pro Team bikes show up. Which I believe should be fairly soon, I hope.
The only issue i've really heard of with the Canfields was the pully wheel mount bent on some of them due to chain growth tension, but I know that has been adressed with the newer frames, I have a bunch of friends on Canfields, my Brother and I ride Rotecs, both frames seem to be very dependable.
Where you from, I know that name.
sorry homeboy, you got your facts wrong. the F1 has absolutely no chain growth (well, it's actually about 1mm) while cycling thru its travel. we can set up them up as a SS if we wanted to. the torque on the bolt is from the riders weight and was solved with different bolts since the problematic one was an incorrect spec...
Virgin, I think.
Oh really...
Uhhhhh, my friend went through like 4 of them. He's done with that bike after all the problems now.
I'll back Secret Squirrel up...he's not a small guy by any means, and he is not exactly easy on bikes. About the weight issue on the Rotec--its really no big deal--I'm only 120# and have a Rotec. The weight doesn't bother me...if anything it helps the bike stick to the ground and track. Its more about how the bike is weighted, and mine is pretty balanced--a little heavier in the rear, so I don't have problems getting the front end up or anything.
Uh, the suspension and geometry helps the bike stick to ground and track, additional weight from the bike itself just makes more work for the shock and fork...
You weren't joking about little sample - post up a bigger pic? Is that from Evergreen?
Colorado
Yeah, I forgot how that bike has minimal chain growth, but those bent bolt had to of had something to do with chain tension, no other way to explain it. That problem has been fixed though. As far as running single speed i'm pretty sure when lance and chris run them this way they still use a tensioning device/ old derailer.
You are only slightly correct in your above referenced statement. The geometry has nothing to do with helping the bike stick to the ground. Does the geometry of a pizza box help to stick it to the ground? How about the geometry of a Christmas tree? The Earth's gravity is what keeps the bike on the ground. You probably already knew this. I know what you are trying to say. The suspension helps to absorb and damp the forces being applied to the bicycle as you ride or jump over various terrain. Additional weight creates more work the shock system must damp, but all things being equal, additional weight also creates more friction between the tires and the ground, as well as more momentum once you get moving. Suspension systems are extremely complicated from a design point of view and each one attempts to solve an even more complicated problem. At the end of the day, all that matters is that you have fun on your bike, and all I was trying to say is that the Rotec is a great bike and the weight is a non-issue, even for a 120# rider.
I'm looking forward to gettting mine, just trying to decide on colour-I'm thinking white or greenWow, a of of concern about the Rotec's weight. I never weighed Geoff's Rotec frame before building up the bike last winter. It did not seem to be an issue at the time or at all last season. That said, on the way back from some shuttle runs Yesterday I took the bike to the shop and weighed it on a registered scale and it came in at 43.2lbs as shown in picture. It was built without taking weight into consideration but durability and performance were.
So before saying 43.2 lbs is a pig consider how much the bike would weigh if We tried to build it light. As others have said the weight is carried low in the frame and IS NOT an issue.
.
Geoff's ride looks goods.
Yup, it's meant to be similar to Kawa green but a little darker I would like it to be Kawa green sic colour
are you sure george? geoffs bike definitely felt a bunch heavier than mine and mine is 42# with nearly all lighter parts (including 2.35 nevegals and xc tubes)
