This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
That's what "small" size is for. If you want to call it large, then make it fucking large.
My forearms must be the size of a "healthy" boys quads.
My forearms must be the size of a "healthy" boys quads.
No. it's for short people. funnily enough.
You know, all those little folk who ran out and bought XL bikes because the industry told them it was betterer and now struggle to mount the thing.
Wait what? This new trend in bike geometry has been a godsend for the vertically challenged. I can finally buy a bike with a comfortablely long reach short enough seat tube to not need to have the damn seat slammed. Old geo I'm a size large, cut 6" off the seat tube and run it 2 inches above the collar, new stuff I'm on the boarder between medium and small and can use a dropper.
FIFY
Baselayer and mid layer should ALWAYS be snug, outerlayer and insulation should have some room to trap warm air coming off the body and insulate, hence the name. Most folks dont get this and rock a baselayer like a tall t and dont get any of the benefits- warmth, moisture management, etc.
Yeah, large frames no long have those hightower top-tubes and 8" long headtubes. It's great.
Awesome, new avatar material!
We're waiting......
Is that the Saskatchatoon dude?
I find that big voids/room to trap air can result in being colder, unless we are talking a hard-shell that will trap heat and moisture (anything that claims to be waterproof is usually is not breathable and comfortable unless you got rain to cool you off). I do use loose hard-shells at times, but they have their limitations. For sustained riding, they just won't breathe well enough IME. In the cold, more breathable outer layers generally work better, and those should be worn closer to the skin for moisture transport. You "make" the space with insulation, like down, or the layer of fleece on the inside, etc. That's where the "space" is, not empty voids because your top layer is too loose, that usually leads to trapping moisture.
I agree though about the base-layer, it seems that when it's close/form fitting, it wicks moisture away almost instantly. When you create those voids and cool air hits your damp skin (loose base layer) you get much colder. I think you also get better moisture transport with all of those layers closer together, again keeping you warmer by not getting as wet.
Just my 2c. I think it greatly depends on what kind of outer-layer.
Last edited:
Moar suspension fuckery. RS decides to cut down the oil volume to save weight.
"All-New Charger Race Day Damper: I was surprised to learn that the lion's share of the weight savings on both the SL and standard SID comes from an all-new Charger Race Day damper that weighs, get this, just 88-grams. That's with the oil in it, too, although there certainly isn't much of it.
The new damper is a whopping (in this world) 98-grams lighter than what was employed inside the previous SID, and it's obvious to see how they did it: Make it really fricken small. Everything has been shrunk down; the damper body and its internals, the damper rod, the expanding bladder, and especially the oil volume. There isn't even a knob to adjust the rebound anymore, with a clip-on hex key thingy doing the job instead."
www.pinkbike.com
"All-New Charger Race Day Damper: I was surprised to learn that the lion's share of the weight savings on both the SL and standard SID comes from an all-new Charger Race Day damper that weighs, get this, just 88-grams. That's with the oil in it, too, although there certainly isn't much of it.
The new damper is a whopping (in this world) 98-grams lighter than what was employed inside the previous SID, and it's obvious to see how they did it: Make it really fricken small. Everything has been shrunk down; the damper body and its internals, the damper rod, the expanding bladder, and especially the oil volume. There isn't even a knob to adjust the rebound anymore, with a clip-on hex key thingy doing the job instead."
Review: RockShox's All-New SID Goes Bigger and Lighter - Pinkbike
There are two new SID forks, one for riders looking for the lightest fork possible, and the other for riders who prefer a little more down in their cross-country riding.
Well to be fair if the death flex of a sid doesn't irritate you, complete lack of damping of that sweet sweet 80mm of travel probably won't either.
It's a SID, all it is supposed to do is move up and down.
As well as 5 other degrees of freedom.
As well as 5 other degrees of freedom.
The potential users of the SID will value the full lockout a lot more than what Monkeys call proper damping. I bet the main reason for the damper's volume reduction is how little the oil will heat up with the fork locked out.
What is wrong with this industry, people judging non downhill bike and parts like they are downhill bikes and parts.
This is 35mm. Get out from under your rock.
That's fair...but it needs to be able to freaking suspend well first and foremost. Otherwise, I've found a rigid fork far better than a crappy suspension fork.
People judging anything based on pictures and theoretical expertise with indignant outrage is a pretty fun hobby. Way better than bong shedding or DH bike shredding.
Last edited:
anyone complaining about this needs to keep in mind this is mainly intended for (**coughcoughworldcupcoughcough**) racers, particularly at the level where it's going to be rebuilt frequently by somebody other than the person riding the bike. it'll also be so stiff that any lack of damping performance won't be noticeable.Moar suspension fuckery. RS decides to cut down the oil volume to save weight.
"All-New Charger Race Day Damper: I was surprised to learn that the lion's share of the weight savings on both the SL and standard SID comes from an all-new Charger Race Day damper that weighs, get this, just 88-grams. That's with the oil in it, too, although there certainly isn't much of it.
The new damper is a whopping (in this world) 98-grams lighter than what was employed inside the previous SID, and it's obvious to see how they did it: Make it really fricken small. Everything has been shrunk down; the damper body and its internals, the damper rod, the expanding bladder, and especially the oil volume. There isn't even a knob to adjust the rebound anymore, with a clip-on hex key thingy doing the job instead."
View attachment 144462
Review: RockShox's All-New SID Goes Bigger and Lighter - Pinkbike
There are two new SID forks, one for riders looking for the lightest fork possible, and the other for riders who prefer a little more down in their cross-country riding.
And if they were only going to distribute that cart to those riders, that would make sense, but they're going to try and spread the cost by convincing everyone that this is what they need. And it's not a bad idea to make a stiffer chassis and make it available, but then to bash in the knee-caps by putting that kind of damper in it is just ridiculous for 95% of riders that will use it. I understand making stuff light, but for suspension the damn shit has to work first, and WC XCers bash their stuff downhill harder far harder than many people on this board will, it just seems like a bad bad idea. I'd rather take adequate stiffness and decent damping, then better stiffness and fuck-all damping. I even went back to my 32 SC more than a few times because the 34 version was harsher, there were a few races where I appreciated the greater stiffness of the 34, but the better damping of the 32 usually won out.
UCI rulebook, Part 1 Chapter 3 Subsection 3 Commercialization
1.3.006 Equipment shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practicing cycling as a sport. Any equipment in development phase and not yet available for sale (prototype) must be subject of an authorisation request to the UCI Equipment Unit before its use. Authorisation will be granted only for equipment which is in the final stage of development and for which commercialisation will take place no later than 12 months after the first use in competition. The manufacturer may request a single prolongation of the prototype status if justified by the relevant reasons.
Well, my racing fatbike IS 22lbs...but I last rode the sub 23lb XC FS race bike last fall.
I don't think it does. The rod may be shorter because the lowers are effectively shorter, but the actual volume is the same I believe.
You may be surprised at how the suspension can be and is set up. The more you have a lockout, the more you can run that and save the suspension for when you need it, and then that suspension can be softer. On endurance races, like more than 50 miles, stuff around 100 miles, I definitely like it to be softer. Really though, providing consistent damping doesn't have much to do with this.
If it was all about efficiency, I wouldn't even use an FS bike. I can put down the watts and not get all banged around with an FS bike (hardtail feels like it's trying to snap my wrists off). The idea that you "don't really need damping" for any off-road riding is ludicrous. It's a non-starter.
Last edited:
Make your mind up what you're talking about please.
it's an XC fork.
WC XC isn't an endurance event is it? it's 90minuteds of laps round the same fairly tame route with a decent amount of climbing.
pretty much every domestic XC series copies this format.
comfort isn't too important for 90minutes
it's an XC fork.
WC XC isn't an endurance event is it? it's 90minuteds of laps round the same fairly tame route with a decent amount of climbing.
pretty much every domestic XC series copies this format.
comfort isn't too important for 90minutes