Jan 30 is the big day, so let's spoil the party and preemptively determine what it's going to be.
New GG Bike Reveal Poll
- Thread starter jackalope
- Start date
bong bike: the faster you go, the harder it tokes. it also has GPS so you ride straight to the store for snacks.
Fucking WiFi!!
Oooh I wonder if it will have a post type brake mount? That would make it cutting edge.
Singles speed e-bike.
It's staggering how bad some of those bikes were...Pipeline, RM9. I know it was in earlier times, but they shouldn't have been as bad as they were.
Like 15 years ago (20?) I was riding in Phoenix on vacation. Stop to grab some shade next to a rock, when somebody on a RM6 pinch-flatted. Flips the bike over, changes the tube puts the wheel back on. Flips the bike over again here's a clank, wiggles swingarm and realizes frame was broken.
I left.
#coolstory
I left.
#coolstory
Kids bike.
See, we would bank on that, coming from the high country. The first shuttles of the day were inevitably full, but by the time we got there, there'd usually already be a few broken bikes and there was our opportunity for a spot on the 'bus.
That's a funny one, I've looked into post mount so many times thinking "we should do this, people seem to like it, as if you run the rotor size that the frame is optimized for, there's no adapter and it looks clean".
Then I always realize that you either design it for a 160 rotor and almost everybody runs an adapter anyway, or design it for a 180 and the adapter nomenclature is wrong and folks get confused/mad when shit doesn't fit as expected, and it takes a lot more machining to produce the post mount geometry than an ISO mount. That's when reason always comes back and I use the ISO mount.
Although, the VR unicycle with built in fleshlight has no standards, so we're just bolting the brake caliper directly to the frame. One size only, 6.9".
It's probably poor machining and/or poor setup by me but I could never get even pad wear on any IS equipped frame, they always had a taper even if set up perfectly aligned when static. Post mount just seems sensible, the bolts are under no load when braking and you don't have a pretty hefty shear force(?) on a tiny surface area.
I know most people keep IS because it cuts down on price but you could almost do a post mount boss on a two axis mill, just machine out to accept barrel nuts then you have to work out how to drill the bolt hole. I am sort of a mechanic, I just hit things with wrenches and tighen stuff with hammers, I know zip about manufacturing but if a bike doesn't have a bottle cage or a post mount brake I ain't buyin' it.
Exactly! Count me as one of those that hate PM on frames (on forks it is OK). I want to be able to adjust the braking power and feel by playing with the rotor size, so if a frame locks me into using e.g. a 203 mm rotor I am not going to buy it.
This is so true, it's only a minor annoyance but every hard-use 29 or 27.5 bike really needs a 203mm rotor on the front (at least) with current brakes, and to not fry pads quickly due to heat they should ideally have 203mm on the rear as well - even though most seem to not realise this. Having to fit adaptors and add a bunch of weight to every bike (adaptor + sometimes double the hardware) is silly - especially weight far better "spent" directly on using a larger rotor alone.
I really think bikes/forks with 160mm+ travel should have 203mm post mount directly. Manfacturers tell us "what's good for us" in so many other aspects (often incorrectly / annoyingly), why not do it in the one place where it benefits almost everyone?
And why not IS on the frame (I agree with you re: forks)? You have all options and are not locked in to a certain rotor size. BTW: it is the lightest option too. I hate it if a 130 mm travel frame has PM180. Not everybody is obese and rides the steepest and gnarliest terrain and some even have powerful brakes that have enough braking power at 160 mm for their type of riding. Combined with short descents, it is dead on impossible to fry the pads even with 160 mm and the smaller rotor results in a better modulation of braking power = less skidding = good for the trails.
But don't worry, the industry lizards will soon switch to Flat Mount on mountain bikes anyway.
I have my doubts regarding this. A bigger rotor allows you to modulate better, since you don't have to pull harder on the lever to brake, due to the increased leverage of said bigger rotor. And pads won't be cooked earlier because of the same reason.
On the IS vs PM debate, I like PM better. Easier to align, no need to fuss with moar shimz, no fear of shearing bolts, and as @HardtailHack said:
that's the rear mount on my RFX.
barrel nut so you can't strip the frame, can still use any adapter for larger rotors.
Living in a flat country has advantages: no cooking of brakes (and no long climbs).
With a larger rotor you can generate braking forces that overwhelm the traction of your tire easier. With a smaller rotor you have to squeeze the brake lever harder to get the same amount of braking force, therefore it is easier to brake at the limit of tire traction IMO. Why should I mount a larger rotor when I can generate enough braking power to lock up my rear wheel in any situation already with the next size down? Only thing I could think of would be heat management, and as I laid out before, that is not an issue for me. Unless you are forced by the frame manufacturer to put big rotors on.