Quantcast

This is what's wrong with The Industry™

kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
Jm_ said:
Even if I bought the requisite bro-dozer, trailer, 15K snowmachine, they still require a crapload of snow to work right.
Click to expand...
Well they definitely require more snow than "zero snow"

If you pay 15k for a sled in alaska, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you get a bro dozer you don't NEED a trailer.........


You know what......nevermind. Just don't get into mountainbiking because you'll need the requisite 16k Unno bike, a brand new 60k sprinter van, and the batteries for your electric suspension.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,980
9,639
AK
kidwoo said:
Well they definitely require more snow than "zero snow"

If you pay 15k for a sled in alaska, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you get a bro dozer you don't NEED a trailer.........


You know what......nevermind. Just don't get into mountainbiking because you'll need the requisite 16k Unno bike, a brand new 60k sprinter van, and the batteries for your electric suspension.
Click to expand...
I like to make it under my own power in the backcountry as much as possible. No snowmachine needed.
 
slyfink

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
9,323
5,074
Ottawa, Canada
HAB said:
Jm_ said:
Riding a fatbike on "not snow" sucks massively any way you do it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that they're the least shitty way to ride a bike on snow.
I'd rather just ski though.
Click to expand...
Jm_ said:
Compared with the alternative of XC skiing, I'll take fat-biking every day and sunday. XC skiing just doesn't look like any fun.
Click to expand...
Depends on the type of snow you have. round me, it snows a little, then gets cold. snowshoers pack down some nice trails, and when the trail is hard, it's actually a lot of fun to bike on. I much prefer DH skiing, but would rather not ski when it's super icy. (which is often on the east coast. to say the least!)

I also really like xc skiing, but only on ungroomed trails. we can ski on all the trails we ride on in the summer (and it's legal too!). it's an adventure, a workout, and a great way to get out in nature. and they really make you work your balance and skills. but those trails are only fun when there is total snow coverage, and there is a fresh layer of new snow. that usually only happens by late January, through to mid-March round here, so two months. I can fatbike from end of November through till mid-April.

In the end, it's nice to have options.

FlipSide said:
To be fair, XC Skate is quite amazing. It is more cardio than road or mtb riding because there's quite a substantial minimal effort you need to provide just to get going. Basically, you cannot really just cruise along with minimal effort unless you have a great technique and you are very fit.

The super cardio workout is the part that sucks about skate skiing however (unless that's what you're after). The fun part is the speed. With good conditions and a good wax you can easily reach speeds above 50km/h on sustained downhills. I'm a very bad skier for the climbs (I'm fat), but I'm decent for the downs and I reached over 60km/h on a few occasion. Very good skiers can reach 70km/h and more. I can tell you reaching those speeds on tiny skis without sidecut or metallic edges, no helmet, no ankle support and your heels not fixed to the ski is quite a rush. I find it's somewhat analogous to clearing greasy tech lines full or slippery rocks and roots on a mtb. It's fun.

That being said, I will probably add a fat bike to the stable next year.
Click to expand...
skate skiing is like road biking to me. in fact, we do it on the same roads here (in Gatineau Park). in the winter, the roads are closed to traffic, machine groomed and track-set. I've tried skate skiing a few times, and all I can think of while doing it is all the awesome trails that are off in the forest I'm skating through.

that said, the cardio workout is really good. I might consider it, but between fatbiking, xc-skiing, and DH skiing, I think I have enough recreational bases covered! and with two kids, I already don't have enough time to fully partake in my current recreational preferences.
 
Last edited:
buckoW

buckoW

Turbo Monkey
Mar 1, 2007
3,786
4,727
Champery, Switzerland
Jm_ said:
They are not rentals, it's from the Iron Dog race a few years ago. That's how shitty the snow conditions have been across Alaska the last few years, but the race goes on whether there's snow on the entire route or not. The machines get beat up either way from the race and are usually trashed (as in fully rebuilt) afterwards. The window where you are able to easily do those kinds of things, XC ski or snow-machine anywhere in the local area, is getting very narrow.
Click to expand...
Where do you live? I had an incredible winter in Girdwood a long time ago. There's been less snow the last few winters around here too.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,980
9,639
AK
buckoW said:
Where do you live? I had an incredible winter in Girdwood a long time ago. There's been less snow the last few winters around here too.
Click to expand...
Anchorage, Girdwood has struggled over the last few years, it tends to rain in the lower half and get rock hard. The North Face hasn’t been good in years.
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
Jm_ said:
Anchorage,
Click to expand...
Oh christ man, you've got some of the most badass mountain terrain in the world near you. Just because some dipshit holds a race on a bare tundra doesn't mean the passes ain't got snow. Get some skins at least. Good lord...........fat bikes. Come on!

I thought you were going to say something hellacious like fairbanks in which case I was just going to feel bad for you and try not to push you towards suicide.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,980
9,639
AK
kidwoo said:
Oh christ man, you've got some of the most badass mountain terrain in the world near you. Just because some dipshit holds a race on a bare tundra doesn't mean the passes ain't got snow. Get some skins at least. Good lord...........fat bikes. Come on!

I thought you were going to say something hellacious like fairbanks in which case I was just going to feel bad for you and try not to push you towards suicide.
Click to expand...
Can't do any of that shit right now due to a bum ankle, but the passes have been bad too, Turnagain only had a dusting of snow at road level over hard ground as of this past weekend.

But I get surgery next week and will be cycling before I do anything else. Backcountry skiing is about all that's worth it around here as far as skiing goes IMO, but much greater hazards out there than bears or bikes when doing this, so I don't get into situations I don't know enough about or screw around alone.

We do have amazing riding in the winter if it would just snow, it did here in Fairbanks today.
 
dcamp29

dcamp29

Monkey
Feb 14, 2004
589
63
Colorado
I hope BR is wrong... My hope for the future is that $2500 buys a solid full suspension rig that can take a few years of abuse with only minimal suspension service, a few tires and chains.


Future Wish list:
-1400g tire withOUT sticky rubber on it (never flats, still rolls fast).
-Lower seat-tubes across all sizes
-Use RED loctite on all suspension bolts from the factory (frame bolts still rattle loose= unacceptable)
-headset bearings last more than 6 months without getting crunchy
 
SinatorJ

SinatorJ

Monkey
Jul 9, 2002
582
51
AZ
kidwoo said:
You still in alaska?

My oh my, what to do in winter....

Here, let's get started.




Don't tell me they're expensive, we're talking about ditching fat bikes. Can't put a dollar amount on that.
Click to expand...
pretty sure a descent sled is way cheaper than a carbonz fat bike, not to mention less shame involved.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
18,980
9,639
AK
SinatorJ said:
pretty sure a descent sled is way cheaper than a carbonz fat bike, not to mention less shame involved.
Click to expand...
Going for a decent sled is a lot more than 4K, which is about where the highest end carbonz fatbike will top out at.
 
Kanye West

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,741
473
I'm going to add another one to the list here.

Metric Shocks

No benefit to the customer. At all. Only one company took advantage of the increased space to do something meaningful with it, and that was RockShox. Everyone else has just burdened the customer with more sizes with less compatibility and ease of swapping.

I judge new technology for bikes by (among other things) the likelihood that I'm going to be filing or grinding or ghetto'ing something up to make brand new parts fit on brand new bikes. My first thought with these goddamn metric shocks coming out was, at some point in the future, I'm going to be fucking around with an air can and some super cheapo spacers to get the stroke lengths to be correct because lord knows the manufacturers won't make this easy or straightforward.

Sure enough, years after their release, I'm still here using homebuilt tools, and homebuilt spacers to get the stroke of one of these fucking things to be correct, because an off-the-shelf option for this shock at this length isn't available, and the manufacturer does not supply 1) an easy method to modify it 2) tools with which to modify it or 3) spacers with which to modify it.

Bike industry "visionaries" - jump in front of a bus. You don't deserve even half of the shit wages the industry pays you.
 
slimshady

slimshady

¡Mira, una ardilla!
Dec 20, 2007
5,413
3,267
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Kanye West said:
I'm going to add another one to the list here.

Metric Shocks

No benefit to the customer. At all. Only one company took advantage of the increased space to do something meaningful with it, and that was RockShox. Everyone else has just burdened the customer with more sizes with less compatibility and ease of swapping.

I judge new technology for bikes by (among other things) the likelihood that I'm going to be filing or grinding or ghetto'ing something up to make brand new parts fit on brand new bikes. My first thought with these goddamn metric shocks coming out was, at some point in the future, I'm going to be fucking around with an air can and some super cheapo spacers to get the stroke lengths to be correct because lord knows the manufacturers won't make this easy or straightforward.

Sure enough, years after their release, I'm still here using homebuilt tools, and homebuilt spacers to get the stroke of one of these fucking things to be correct, because an off-the-shelf option for this shock at this length isn't available, and the manufacturer does not supply 1) an easy method to modify it 2) tools with which to modify it or 3) spacers with which to modify it.

Bike industry "visionaries" - jump in front of a bus. You don't deserve even half of the shit wages the industry pays you.
Click to expand...

I'm a cheap Luddite, so I still have to face the metric shock challenges. How comes you can't find the right length for a given frame? Weren't these new "standards" meant to be as commonly available as the previous sizes? Are you trying to adapt a metric shock to an "imperial" frame?

What do you mean by RS being the only company doing something meaningful with the extra space?

I'm not judging you, I just want to have some context to better understand your struggles.
 
Kanye West

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,741
473
slimshady said:
I'm a cheap Luddite, so I still have to face the metric shock challenges. How comes you can't find the right length for a given frame? Weren't these new "standards" meant to be as commonly available as the previous sizes? Are you trying to adapt a metric shock to an "imperial" frame?

What do you mean by RS being the only company doing something meaningful with the extra space?

I'm not judging you, I just want to have some context to better understand your struggles.
Click to expand...
Nope, metric shock to metric frame.

The problem is that there were....6 or so shock sizes before? Now there are 4 principal i2i lengths, and each i2i length has a whole bunch of possible stroke lengths that it can accommodate, by way of shortening. Further, there are additional mounting options (bearing eyelet, Trunnion, and some other shit I'm forgetting). So that's all multiplicative. Result, WAY more shock sizes and drastically reduced cross-compatibility. I don't know what it works out to exactly. Gotta be something like 20 or 30 different iterations of the same thing per manufacturer.

The pitch for this stuff in the beginning, since I think it was RockShox that pioneered this, wasn't altogether bad. They saw some benefit in things like greater sealhead bushing overlap (greater L/d) which reduced binding from sideloads in the frame. Also there was length opportunity to have different top-out mechanisms that weren't able to be packaged before. By itself, those are noble reasons to expand the envelope of the then-current shocks. The scope of the change in sizes was originally to reduce the number of available sizes, and to simplify things: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/rockshoxs-new-super-deluxe-shock-first-ride-2016.html

Fast forward to today - nobody else has capitalized on the extra space available in the shocks for a more robust chassis or more robust damping features. But they have all snuck in more and more extra sizes with shortened lengths and oddball sizes. And in doing so, have failed miserably to provide easy ways to shift their products around between those sizes, as they were supposed to originally. Frame manufacturers have also somehow designed themselves into corners that call for even MORE custom i2i and stroke lengths. Which is why I'm here fashioning my own tools and spacers and my dremel is still in regular use in spite of all these silly fucking standards.

By the way, shock prices have crept up with the onset of the metric sizes too.
 
Electric_City

Electric_City

Torture wrench
Apr 14, 2007
1,994
716
Kanye West said:
Nope, metric shock to metric frame.

The problem is that there were....6 or so shock sizes before? Now there are 4 principal i2i lengths, and each i2i length has a whole bunch of possible stroke lengths that it can accommodate, by way of shortening. Further, there are additional mounting options (bearing eyelet, Trunnion, and some other shit I'm forgetting). So that's all multiplicative. Result, WAY more shock sizes and drastically reduced cross-compatibility. I don't know what it works out to exactly. Gotta be something like 20 or 30 different iterations of the same thing per manufacturer.

The pitch for this stuff in the beginning, since I think it was RockShox that pioneered this, wasn't altogether bad. They saw some benefit in things like greater sealhead bushing overlap (greater L/d) which reduced binding from sideloads in the frame. Also there was length opportunity to have different top-out mechanisms that weren't able to be packaged before. By itself, those are noble reasons to expand the envelope of the then-current shocks. The scope of the change in sizes was originally to reduce the number of available sizes, and to simplify things: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/rockshoxs-new-super-deluxe-shock-first-ride-2016.html

Fast forward to today - nobody else has capitalized on the extra space available in the shocks for a more robust chassis or more robust damping features. But they have all snuck in more and more extra sizes with shortened lengths and oddball sizes. And in doing so, have failed miserably to provide easy ways to shift their products around between those sizes, as they were supposed to originally. Frame manufacturers have also somehow designed themselves into corners that call for even MORE custom i2i and stroke lengths. Which is why I'm here fashioning my own tools and spacers and my dremel is still in regular use in spite of all these silly fucking standards.

By the way, shock prices have crept up with the onset of the metric sizes too.
Click to expand...
As if that didn't suck enough, companies like Trek already used proprietary sizes. I believe that my 2010 Remedy had a 7 7/8" i2i with trunion mounts. What else made it impossible to change was the rocker link was designed to hit the seat tube if you put an 8" i2i on it... You think that when you spend over $2k on a bike that these dumb fucks would let you be able to make some changes to your bike. It's sad really.
 
Tantrum Cycles

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,143
503
Kanye West said:
I'm going to add another one to the list here.

Metric Shocks
Click to expand...
one of the most blatant money grab standards of all, Just needless. Make one more size if you really need to, not all new sizes. Is this where I put "For fuck sake"?

As a frame designer, less flexibility.

Saving grace, trunnion mount
 
Tantrum Cycles

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,143
503
Electric_City said:
As if that didn't suck enough, companies like Trek already used proprietary sizes. I believe that my 2010 Remedy had a 7 7/8" i2i with trunion mounts. What else made it impossible to change was the rocker link was designed to hit the seat tube if you put an 8" i2i on it... You think that when you spend over $2k on a bike that these dumb fucks would let you be able to make some changes to your bike. It's sad really.
Click to expand...
ok, I protest here. So, you are complaining that you can't put a longer shock on than the bike was designed for??

But...you insist on:

Micro short CS
Micro low BB
Ultra low TT an ST
Room for 7 XL water bottles
Emergency tampon storage
various and sundry battery compartments
400 mm dropper
36 in wheels
gearbox and belt drive compatible
some flip chips, you know, because

Oh, and that seat tube the rocker is hitting, that's because we need a 90 degree STA. Because, you know, it's practically a standard now.

I guess I'll just go back and find more room in case somebody wants to put a V-8 in

EDIT!!!!: FULL DISCLOSURE!!!!

If somebody were to attempt to fit a longer shock in one of my bikes????

It'll hit the seat tube.....
 
Electric_City

Electric_City

Torture wrench
Apr 14, 2007
1,994
716
Tantrum Cycles said:
ok, I protest here. So, you are complaining that you can't put a longer shock on than the bike was designed for??

But...you insist on:

Micro short CS
Micro low BB
Ultra low TT an ST
Room for 7 XL water bottles
Emergency tampon storage
various and sundry battery compartments
400 mm dropper
36 in wheels
gearbox and belt drive compatible
some flip chips, you know, because

Oh, and that seat tube the rocker is hitting, that's because we need a 90 degree STA. Because, you know, it's practically a standard now.

I guess I'll just go back and find more room in case somebody wants to put a V-8 in

EDIT!!!!: FULL DISCLOSURE!!!!

If somebody were to attempt to fit a longer shock in one of my bikes????

It'll hit the seat tube.....
Click to expand...
Nope. You complete missed this one.

I don't want a "longer shock". I wanted a different shock. But due to Trek using a proprietary size and mounts, I had no options except to go from a 7.875" to 8" i2i. Get it? But the extra 3mm wouldn't work. Get it?

I'm not asking for change in The Industry™ FFS. I'm asking for STABILIZATION. I want shit that works and is durable, isn't proprietary and isn't out of date in 2 months after buying it.

I never wanted short chainstays (the 26" Remedy had 17.1" stays). The one I had with short CS caused the front end to lift on climbs.
I never asked for low Bb's cause rocks. Personally I think they're getting too low solely for that reason.
Never asked for lower TT. I hate these hydroformed, bent tubes anymore. They resemble girls bikes.
Don't give 1 shit about water bottle mounts. I think this is the stupidest requirement on a modern bike. What's next? Brake bosses again?
Tampon storage will be available on a women's specific saddle. And for roadies of course.
My Camelback carries my shit, not my frame.
26 for life. But since it's discontinued I was forced to 27.5. You'll never see me in a 29'er. Ask Jay De Jesus. (this is an ongoing joke since 2007).

Get it?
 
Tantrum Cycles

Tantrum Cycles

Turbo Monkey
Jun 29, 2016
1,143
503
Electric_City said:
Nope. You complete missed this one.

I don't want a "longer shock". I wanted a different shock. But due to Trek using a proprietary size and mounts, I had no options except to go from a 7.875" to 8" i2i. Get it? But the extra 3mm wouldn't work. Get it?

I'm not asking for change in The Industry™ FFS. I'm asking for STABILIZATION. I want shit that works and is durable, isn't proprietary and isn't out of date in 2 months after buying it.

I never wanted short chainstays (the 26" Remedy had 17.1" stays). The one I had with short CS caused the front end to lift on climbs.
I never asked for low Bb's cause rocks. Personally I think they're getting too low solely for that reason.
Never asked for lower TT. I hate these hydroformed, bent tubes anymore. They resemble girls bikes.
Don't give 1 shit about water bottle mounts. I think this is the stupidest requirement on a modern bike. What's next? Brake bosses again?
Tampon storage will be available on a women's specific saddle. And for roadies of course.
My Camelback carries my shit, not my frame.
26 for life. But since it's discontinued I was forced to 27.5. You'll never see me in a 29'er. Ask Jay De Jesus. (this is an ongoing joke since 2007).

Get it?
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahahhahha. I will hereby and respectfully substitute the word "you" with "the industry" in my previous post.

Then I will go back to designing frames for a veritable cornucopia of standards, trends and preferences, by the collective "you".

Some of you are more correct than others.

I give myself no credit whatsoever for fitting a standard length shock.
 
canadmos

canadmos

Cake Tease
May 29, 2011
20,453
19,450
Canaderp
Electric_City said:
Nope. You complete missed this one.

I don't want a "longer shock". I wanted a different shock. But due to Trek using a proprietary size and mounts, I had no options except to go from a 7.875" to 8" i2i. Get it? But the extra 3mm wouldn't work. Get it?

I'm not asking for change in The Industry™ FFS. I'm asking for STABILIZATION. I want shit that works and is durable, isn't proprietary and isn't out of date in 2 months after buying it.

I never wanted short chainstays (the 26" Remedy had 17.1" stays). The one I had with short CS caused the front end to lift on climbs.
I never asked for low Bb's cause rocks. Personally I think they're getting too low solely for that reason.
Never asked for lower TT. I hate these hydroformed, bent tubes anymore. They resemble girls bikes.
Don't give 1 shit about water bottle mounts. I think this is the stupidest requirement on a modern bike. What's next? Brake bosses again?
Tampon storage will be available on a women's specific saddle. And for roadies of course.
My Camelback carries my shit, not my frame.
26 for life. But since it's discontinued I was forced to 27.5. You'll never see me in a 29'er. Ask Jay De Jesus. (this is an ongoing joke since 2007).

Get it?
Click to expand...
Banshee? Straight tubez, no water bottle mount, 26" nonboost is possible etc

I'm pooing
 
sethimus

sethimus

neu bizutch
Feb 5, 2006
4,960
2,178
not in Whistler anymore :/
Kanye West said:
Nope, metric shock to metric frame.

The problem is that there were....6 or so shock sizes before? Now there are 4 principal i2i lengths, and each i2i length has a whole bunch of possible stroke lengths that it can accommodate, by way of shortening. Further, there are additional mounting options (bearing eyelet, Trunnion, and some other shit I'm forgetting). So that's all multiplicative. Result, WAY more shock sizes and drastically reduced cross-compatibility. I don't know what it works out to exactly. Gotta be something like 20 or 30 different iterations of the same thing per manufacturer.

The pitch for this stuff in the beginning, since I think it was RockShox that pioneered this, wasn't altogether bad. They saw some benefit in things like greater sealhead bushing overlap (greater L/d) which reduced binding from sideloads in the frame. Also there was length opportunity to have different top-out mechanisms that weren't able to be packaged before. By itself, those are noble reasons to expand the envelope of the then-current shocks. The scope of the change in sizes was originally to reduce the number of available sizes, and to simplify things: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/rockshoxs-new-super-deluxe-shock-first-ride-2016.html

Fast forward to today - nobody else has capitalized on the extra space available in the shocks for a more robust chassis or more robust damping features. But they have all snuck in more and more extra sizes with shortened lengths and oddball sizes. And in doing so, have failed miserably to provide easy ways to shift their products around between those sizes, as they were supposed to originally. Frame manufacturers have also somehow designed themselves into corners that call for even MORE custom i2i and stroke lengths. Which is why I'm here fashioning my own tools and spacers and my dremel is still in regular use in spite of all these silly fucking standards.

By the way, shock prices have crept up with the onset of the metric sizes too.
Click to expand...
an american complaining about the metric system, so typical
 
iRider

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
5,653
3,092
Electric_City said:
26 for life. But since it's discontinued I was forced to 27.5.
Click to expand...
Watcha talkin' about? Plenty of good 26" tires still available, aluminum and carbonz rims for cheap new and used....
On top of that decent used bikes of the last generation of 26ers for 1/5-1/10 of the original MSRP.
Unless you reeeeealy need that new and unproven tire design from some hip new manufacturer then I don't see a reason to change anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom