Don't laugh but start jogging. Helped me heaps.
Hi Pivot Trail Bikes?
- Thread starter ianjenn
- Start date
I know what you're saying, but even when I was running 3x a week my feet stayed flat. I destroyed my arches early (like grade school) and they just don't want to lift. I'd love to fix them - makes fitting ski boots a problem too.
Interesting difference there. I have no interest in climbing quickly, but definitely don't want climbing any harder than it has to be.
Ah yeah fair enough. I used to get sore feet quite a bit but after I started jogging to burn off post-injury beer gut I noticed it significantly improved the issue for me. Crappy problem to have mate.
I'd take my way too FS bike for less fatigued chunky ascents over HT anytime.
I mean, when you're climbing smooth pavement, maybe the 2% make a difference. But I bet tires/pressure/poorly lubed chain/beers previous night have bigger impact.
I'm flat footed and can get bad pain in the balls of my feet from overuse. I had to stop running a few years ago, and I can't backpack anymore. For me the issue is likely neuromas (going to see a doc about them next week actually). I use these in all of my shoes and they help immensely - https://www.amazon.com/Balance-3030-Pressure-Relief-Insole/dp/B0728HBCXW. For cycling I've had to seek out the shoes with the widest toe box: Adidas changing the profile of 510s fucked me.
Yeah but they're not comparing a FS bike to a HT. They're comparing two monster travel FS bikes which would both descend bloody well. Who wants to make climbing harder than it needs to be? Do HP bikes make that much of a difference descending really?
I'd take my way too FS bike for less fatigued chunky ascents over HT anytime.
I mean, when you're climbing smooth pavement, maybe the 2% make a difference. But I bet tires/pressure/poorly lubed chain/beers previous night have bigger impact.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the difference between a dirty HP idler drivetrain and dirty non idler system is not going to result an equivalent drop in efficiency between the two. For example, let's say you have a 98% efficient gear pair that experiences a 2% drop due to being dirty, hence it is 96% efficient.
In comparison adding a 3rd gear to the above - .98*.98 = .9604 = 96% efficient clean. However, if dirty - .96*.96 = .9216 = 92% efficient.
HP make much more sense for DH application in my mind.
In comparison adding a 3rd gear to the above - .98*.98 = .9604 = 96% efficient clean. However, if dirty - .96*.96 = .9216 = 92% efficient.
HP make much more sense for DH application in my mind.
I haven’t ridden enough high pivot bikes to say anything conclusively, but in the case of my Shore yes.
If you put a HT on the trainer, you'd get maybe 20-30% higher efficiency compared to both FS bikes? Still, I would not pick one for chunk. The comparison is meaningless.
I find these number to be questionable.
The time difference between my hardtail and enderpo bike on a 5 mile climb I ride regularly are negligible.
Perhaps if you are talking about standing sprint on a concentric pivot bike with an elastomer shock from 1990.
Do you have planar fasciitis? One of our local pros did and just got the surgery. He was getting so bad he couldn't stand and had to get a job sitting and making wheels at the bike shop.
Norco.
If you look at the difference in where the main pivot is on those bikes it makes sense though. I can't find a magnified axle path for the Range, but here they are for the Druid, Dreadnought and the Kavenz VHP16 (which is more of a mid-high pivot). The Forbidden's both have significantly more chainstay growth, and have really long chainstays to begin with.
I love living in a fantasy universe where rebound axle path does not exist
This is how you break wheels, people.
How many people have complained of bikes being slower in a straight line as head angles have slackened off, same thing isn't it?
Probably because if you ride somewhere that needs a slack head angle the parts where you care about efficiency is uphill where there is little weight on the front end and it has little effect on efficiency. Perhaps the Free Riders Of Nebraska disagree.
100%
About 98% of discussions regarding performance in this forum seem to address third order effects.
Going out on a limb here but maybe bike companies should work on getting costs down. WTF are people paying $7K for a mid-level and $10K for a high-end bike these days? So their engineers can get paid $50K a year? Hell In N Out starts close to that.....
Well this was well received
Intense now at Costco!!
https://www.costco.com/bicycles.html?refine=%7C%7CBrand_attr-INTENSE&searchProvider=lucidworks
ridemonkey.bikemag.com
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it then, because the answer that comes to my mind to the question: How many people have complained of bikes being slower in a straight line as head angles have slackened off, same thing isn't it?
is
"everyone all the time, forever has wanted better efficiency, uphill or downhill, and what does a slacker headangle have to do with it?"
Naw, it's just very low arches & weak muscles associated with the arches. I can run fine (forefoot strike) and hike for hours, it's just activities with quick repeated impacts or vibration that cause midfoot soreness (MTB & skiing). I'll probably try some fancy insoles as previously suggested.
Also going from say a 68 degree head angle to 64 degrees with a 160mm fork, rearward travel increases by 4.5mm. but since a fork is linear only a small portion of that happens in the smaller travel range you would care about efficiency where as a high pivot has a lot more of the rearward travel in the initial bits of travel where you would care about it.
......Plus the vast majority of your weight is over the rear wheel when really smashing into things
And I don't know about you guys but the damping settings between the front and rear of my bikes are setup vastly different from one another because of this.
They're not really comparable
Last edited:
From a suspension perspective my modern long slack long travel bike pedals better than my 15 year old short steep XC bike. It would probably be overall more efficient if it had the same weenie tires. That long wheel base does a lot to limit weight transfer and resulting suspension motion.
If you want to completely undo that, get a high pivot pivot bike to pedal around on
But have you tested that on a trainer with a power meter?
Actually I have had both a road bike and my old XC bike on my Saris trainer. I can't say I noticed any difference in my ability to generate power. I also don't pedal like Fred Munster having a seizure.But have you tested that on a trainer with a power meter?
Try ride concepts with their almost too squishy insoles.
I bet the 50k engineer makes more than most of the B level factory racers.
Something is wrong when a Racers salary doesn't pay enough for said racer to buy the BICYCLE he risks his life on for a living.
I get your point, but I wonder how road racers are compensated, as it surely isn't based on "ticket sales and TV contracts" seeing as no one (in legit TV markets) watches road races except perhaps for the odd glace at a random TDF stage.
Perhaps its as simple as bike companies sell 70 million more road bikes than mountain bikes, so they feel more compelled to pay roadies more. Or maybe its also the other companies they endorse that they're getting a lot of coin from. Seems like something @jonKranked would have some thoughts on.
There's a pretty common standard in series hosting bodies that says basically "yeah the compensation we provide is the stage upon which you can build a career with manufacturers, so we ain't paying you shit"
Pretty sure the money in road racing comes from team sponsors, which is usually not even bike related. More like NASCAR. Which points to having a much larger viewership and marketing potential for customers. Looking at a list of TDF teams from recent years Trek and Cannondale are the only two bike companies that are major sponsors. Trek and Cannondale probably have more road frames fall off the back of trucks than they sell DH bikes. There are more Countries that sponsor road teams than there are bike companies that are primary team sponsors.
Last edited:
Thanks, good info. I know that no one watches DH either, but I was thinking of Enduro and XC as well, as they make peanuts too I assume. I guess I'm shocked that anyone (even in Yurp) gives a fuck about road racing, as it seems like there's soccer and practically nothing else (in terms of getting legit TV ratings). Shows you what I know.
If you want to know where mountain biking ranks in viewership just know that ESPN televises Cornhole and Spikeball tournaments.
For sure, but I can't imagine the TDF fares much better these days. It just seems bizarre that corporations would throw money into road if no one is really watching. Again, maybe millions of people in Spain are taking entire weeks off to watch random Vueltas and pay attention to what's on a rider's jersey.
Yeah it is a Euro sport. Look at all the major sponsors. As an American I have no fucking clue who those companies are.
Road and XC are huge in Europe and the tv time keeps the roadies getting all the money. Nino Shurter has a credit card sponsor on his forehead.... DH just isn’t there.