DH150 is the same as DH157 in the chart, except the 157 sits into the dropouts, same as 135 versus 142.your chart neglects to include the one standard i mentioned in reference
This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
Nope its the same and shouldn't be called 157dh or 157 super boost.
Should be 157 symetrical and 157 aysmetrical
You can stick a 157 asymetrical in a dh bike, and 157 symetrical in a trail bike.
Notice there is actually nothing anywhere about where the flange is placed on 157 "dh" you won't find a standard, it varies, it also varies with "superboost
Currently selling a DT Swiss 350 rear hub with 157mm spacing. This both helps and also confuses me further. Dumb question but if the dropout spacing is the same why can't you dish the wheel so as so use either hub for either application? Or would this create wildly uneven spoke tension or otherwise a terrible wheel?
Indians were offended...
m.pinkbike.com
By the price
Yeti Celebrates 35th Anniversary by Releasing $9,900 Limited Edition ARC Hardtail - Pinkbike
Only 100 of these 90s tribute hardtails will be released.
By the price
Indians were offended...
Yeti Celebrates 35th Anniversary by Releasing $9,900 Limited Edition ARC Hardtail - Pinkbike
Only 100 of these 90s tribute hardtails will be released.
By the price
Couldn't have had the man that made the original frames make them again? Nope, we have someone of questionable age working in questionable conditions using toxic chemicals to glue a frame together. I sure am glad you lost The Tribe slogan though.....
Is that his own bike there?
If I had $4K I would approach him about a 125-150mm Adjustable travel 29" that also had a HA between 63.5 and 64 with a LOW BB right around 13" and a decent reach maybe 485 and just use FSR on the back end. I just don't have that kind of $$$ to spend......
I have owned a TI Hartdtail back in the day. I much prefer the Aluminum bike I owned before. Also, I am not sure if Frank does steel....
Backcountry (which owns Competitive Cyclist) has a big black eye from the shit they did in the last year. Now Special-Ed teams up with them, screwing the IBD. Which is what Specialized and Trek claim they're all about.
www.bicycling.com
Specialized Starts Selling Through Backcountry and Competitive Cyclist
And independent Specialized dealers will be able to sell frames and equipment online, according to a company email obtained by Bicycle Retailer and Industry News.
www.bicycling.com
SuperCo
2 years 29 will be dead 32 will be the ticket..
Then mixing 32 and 29 will be hoooottt
Then mixing 32 and 29 will be hoooottt
Video: Mammoth Mountain Opens New eMTB Trail - Pinkbike
Mammoth's latest trail the 'Bosch eMTB Flow Trail' opens this week with features designed specifically for eMTBs.
Isn't the point of eMTBs so that you can shred rowdy stuff without having to go to a DH park? I guess I just don't get the point.
Fox is apparently suing Slick Graphics for selling decals
Yeah, I got an email from Slick Graphics yesterday about that. Seems like selling creaky-crown forks isn't profitable enough so Fox has to bleed every single penny out of the gigantic decal market.
Last edited:
a C&D isn't a lawsuitFox is apparently suing Slick Graphics for selling decals
generally i'm for the little guy in these kinds of situations, but unless they had a contract authorizing them to reproduce the branding this is a pretty clear cut case of trademark infringement. that being said, it's definitely a heavy handed move from Fox.
Sorry, I am not so good at legal regulations...
I wouldn't consider it heavy handed. They are not only duplicating someone's trademark but copying their artwork. Someone going into business doing that without prior agreement should expect to run into trouble.
This isn't like they are pulling Backcountry.com and suing everyone who uses the word Fox. They are asking someone to stop using trademarked logos and artwork.
This isn't like they are pulling Backcountry.com and suing everyone who uses the word Fox. They are asking someone to stop using trademarked logos and artwork.
Last edited:
Well yeah, but isn't a C&D basically "stop, or I'll sue you!".
I would pay for FUX stickers or Rabid Fox
Fox are obviously just mad that the Slik Graphics ones are so much nicer. I personally wonder what the legality of all this really is, 'replica' decals are all over the motorsports world and you can go into any random gas station and purchase a sticker of Calvin urinating on any number of trademarked logos for example.
Have you seen how much Dissent Labs charge for a pair of socks? The rassin' socks business is good business.
Have you seen how much Dissent Labs charge for a pair of socks? The rassin' socks business is good business.
Social media is one reason and the other is that it's their fucking company.
That's why Fox did what they did and have every right to do so.
That's why Fox did what they did and have every right to do so.
and Slik graphics, regardless of how nice their product is, are making and selling decals using trademarked branding when they are not authorised to do so.
Fox owns the trademark on their branding, and it's their responsibility to enforce it.
I think most people don't know that if you fail to defend your trademark, you lose it.
So if Fox doesn't send Slik a C&D, then Slik and anyone else can go on producing all of the Fox branding they want without repercussion. Not even a dick move from Fox, just them saying "no, we are not releasing our trademarks into the public domain."
Meanwhile:
Honestly I don't know which one to blame, Fox or Slick. But how they could end up in this awkward situation is definitely something wrong with this industry
Honestly I don't know which one to blame, Fox or Slick. But how they could end up in this awkward situation is definitely something wrong with this industry
if they have licensing agreements in place with other companies but not fox, then they absolutely should know better and i have no pity for them whatsoever. and the whole david vs goliath angle they're pushing is more than just disingenuous, its outright misleading.
Last edited:
I am always amused at how some people think it should be perfectly ok for a company to profit from another company's years of hard work and brand-building. Sure, some go overboard (looking at you, Specialized), but it's not just fair to blatantly trade on someone else's good will. The Slik guys know they should have a license agreement, so maybe this was inadvertent or some kind of internal miscommunication rather than intentional.
i definitely think there's more to this story given that its now come out they have licensing agreements in place with at least one other major company.
Rim centerline is in the same place, dropouts in the same place, brake flange is in the same place....
Mass producing a different company's logo without a license is just a really dumb business model, especially in the US.
I'm sure you meant to make a point but converse is owned by Nike.Mass producing a different company's logo without a license is just a really dumb business model, especially in the US.
Q
.
That's your second strike mate. One more reality backed statement and I'll call for @binary visions to ban you from the
.
But neither Nike or Converse made the shoe in the pic.
This is generally called a bootleg.
This is generally called a bootleg.