Fitter

Perhaps try looking at your saddle position - it may be tilted down at the nose and this would put undue pressure on the hands. But no doubt once the ulnar neuropathy strikes it may take a while to settle down and physio would help to lessen the encapsulation of the nerve. Try raising your bars and tilting your saddle up slightly at the nose. Then double-wrap the bars as suggested and be patient.

Well I know a thing or two about saddles and how to set them up. I won't claim any more than a couple or more years of bikefitting and being a qualified bikefitter could lend me, but I do know that ischial width and bike posture are the two most important departure points. Then you can add in leg-length discrepancy, pelvic tilt or rotation, functional leg-length adjustment and proprioceptive response as important elements in achieving optimum saddle fit. I also know dynamic fitting is by far the best method for achieving proper saddle fit and in truth there are few saddle manufacturers out there paying proper attention to saddle design. But love to hear what coach has to say about how to fit a saddle.

Idiot. Here you go again. Carbon assembly compound is not Copaslip with fine sand. Sand would resist compaction at granular level and this could damage the surfaces on some components. Carbon assembly compound has tiny plastic balls suspended in a water-resistant lube. These balls compress under load, thereby reducing slippage without damaging anything. So if you are tempted to go the stupid route and mix fine sand with grease or Copaslip, don't. Use the right stuff.

Simple, then. Show me the documentation. Fact is, the first commercially produced MTB was the Stumpjumper. Going back to the Mt Tamalpais days, there is a whole herd of speculation as to who designed or "originated" what, so your well-documented statement simply requires some verification.

That would be funny were it not so blindingly ignorant. Now I've heard it all.

Simply put, a good position is one that is most comfortable, irrespective of the cycling discipline. So no, a tri position is not meant to be uncomfortable. The basis of good fit is to fit the bike to the rider, not the other way around, and there is no need to force an adaptation. That being said, tri fitting is a specialist discipline and you do need to get to see someone who knows tri setups. Also know that good aerodynamics are a function of frontal width and not height, so there is no pressing need to get super-low in front in the mistaken belief this is aero. Rather sit taller (and easier) and set up to get narrower rather than lower.

Rebound damping is also determined by rider weight - or more accurately the air-spring chamber pressure the component is pumped to. Heavier riders will use a higher pumping pressure to properly set sag on their suspension - this will mean greater compression of the component and a faster return on rebound, so heavier riders using higher sag pressures will need to run higher rebound damping for the same relative return speed.

See Dawid @ Fritz Pienaar in Irene.

The most important aspect is to get your sitbone width measured (ischial tuberosities). Both Specialized and Bontrager have a device for measuring sitbone width. Thereafter it is essential to get a saddle sized for your sitbones. While this doesn't guarantee immediate comfort, especially if it is a well-designed saddle that puts you squarely on your sitbones, it is a major step towards avoiding long-term discomfort and health issues. Often a good saddle leaves the rider with tender sitbones for a while as the tissues get accustomed to bearing the load, but in the long term this is a small price to pay for avoiding erectile disfunction and other health issues among men, and perineal discomfort and tissue damage among women.

I always thought bicycle racing was about who gets to the finish line first. Most of what passes for bicycle racing these days is glorified bunch time-trialing where "elapsed time" somehow defines your cycling prowess! And anyone who has properly raced bicycles knows that there are definite codes of behaviour - etiquettes - that are strictly adhered to or the peloton will sanction the transgressor. Considerate riding isn't just a matter of style - it's a matter of survival.

Chronic lower back pain from cycling has so many possible causes - from saddle width to leg length discrepancy to prior injury - that short of getting a proper fit from a good fitter, the problem will persist. But in truth, good fitters who can do proper remedial fits are very few and very far between. What I do know is that the fitter will need to do a complete physical assessment and riding experience analysis to begin finding an answer. Also, lasers and formulaic fits using computer analysis are a complete waste of time and money. There is as much art as there is science in fitting someone effectively on a bike and a good fitter needs both in abundance.

Anyone condoning vigilantism needs to think carefully about the reductio ad absurdum. Means we should all carry guns I suppose. Naah, vigilantism is as stupid as riding in the middle of the road. And the Cradle belongs to everyone, not some self-styled "I'm Special" wannabees with inflated opinions. Seems this applies to both residents and some cyclists.

Karakoram is not the name of a mountain, but the name of a mountain range between Pakistan, India and China (I think). The Karakoram Highway is the highest paved road in the world and a famous destination for cyclists.

Toe-down can be caused by a number of things. If you are comfortable riding like this, by all means continue. There is absolutely no need, in the absence of some or other problem, to change riding position based on comment passed by other riders. Your style will develop over time so nothing is cast in stone.

Firstly my condolences to the family of the fallen rider, in particular his brother, who was witness to the sad incident - the two were riding together. Also, props to their lady team-mate (in the Bionic kit) who was trying vainly to assist. Their group passed me about 500m further up the road so I was one of the first to stop and try and assist. Sadly there was no pulse, no sign of respiration - a bad accident indeed. From what the young lady could relate, the rider never saw the stopped taxi and failed to swerve out of the way. She was distraught because she did try shouting at him to warn him but he never heard. All I could do was ask a stopped traffic officer to get an ambulance, get her to go and sit with the rider's brother and park their bikes. Some worthless words of condolence to them and I opted to leave. I apologise for not doing more. This was not the first fatal cycling accident I've witnessed and the last one left me with an onerous task of meeting with a fallen rider's family to to tell them about the accident I'd observed. But Saturday's long ride home after this incident left me saddened, scared and frustrated. We all know these things are avoidable. They're avoidable from the point of view of the overall chaos that pervades our roads and the unwillingness of us users, or the authorities, to do anything about it. And I'm not blaming the taxi driver any more than I blame anyone else involved. Nor am I blaming him and them any less. But that is a bad stretch of road on a busy Saturday morning - it deserves to be approached with caution instead of the downhill being used as a bomb-alley to get up speed for the climb out of the dip. And club groups of riders are no more innocent because of their inevitable "win-the-training-ride" behaviour. We've been riding these roadways for decades now - many of us old geezers are only too aware of the changes in traffic density and if responsible ride captains don't step up and take some responsibility for their group, these things are destined to continue. I suppose the ride home and the aftermath of the shock have provoked this - my apologies but I just can't avoid thinking we are our own worst enemies simply because we want to get in a bunch and go and ride hard. I don't have any real answers but I do know these things can be avoided. And thanks to my buddy Jacques who got up real early yesterday to come ride with me and try and help me recover some of the joy I get from riding my bike.

Hey Boris, I saw those shoes you were wearing yesterday ......... I want me some of them. Just not sure I can afford them. Now why go and add some sense to this discussion? You have spoiled a righteous rant from all those oppressed buyers being forced to shop overseas at online retailers. And I thought it was just a simple matter of choice .....

Please don't associate a subjective experiment like that to my way of thinking. Had you been here long enough you would know that I deplore experiments like that. They are generally meaningles. And I'm not criticising Batt-ass' experiment he conducted to confirm something for himself. It is just that it won't hold water without controlled inputs timing etc. Strangely, his experiment is no less thought-out than some of the tripe you peddle here. And frankly, my tenure on this forum has little to do with my ability to recognize drivel. Further, I think we all agree that suspension contributes to comfort, control and efficiency. I didn't see anyone argue that suspension doesn't have a role to play in maintaining traction. That's not what the debate is about, the debate is about suspension movements robbing energy. Bootstrap this any way you like. The argument is actually about whether all suspension movements are a robbing of energy, or not. See below. You and your new chum can also stop telling us how much R&D money is poured into suspension design....come to think of it, you never gave the quantum (now where did I learn that?) but simply try and impress us by suggesting large figures. You are coming across all bitter here, JB. Is this because your cloak is slipping? Is this because someone dares question your knowledge (or real lack thereof) on subjects you pronounce on? He is not a new chum - and if you had some background knowledge outside of the limited sphere of reference you do have, you'd understand just how ill-informed you're starting to sound. Please call any of the suspension manufacturers or bigger bike manufacturers to get an idea. I've been in a big R&D design facility and the real expenditure on things like suspension design defies belief. So take it or leave it. Budget has nothing to do with the physics and you know that well, so stop dragging around that red herring. This from the red herring master himself!! Amusing. Budget has everything to do with it. This would be R&D budget, design, testing, prototyping etc. Are you this ignorant? The application of your dearly-beloved physics has it's home in the expenditure of budget!! You say "Strangely enough, bob in poor designs is more a function of pedal inputs on the chain than rider leg pistoning." Well guess what, it is easy to counter that claim by looking at bobbing on a hard-tail with suspension fork. Bobbing there is purely from the legs acting as heavy pistons in the vertical plane. Transplant that model into a full susser and you have leg-induced bobbing front and back - in fact most of the bobbing comes from that force and not from the chain and therefore most of the energy lost is from the pedalling action you try and argue away. Once again you red herring and bootstrap. Puhleeze stop projecting and debate like a gentleman. Or try, even if you're factually or intellectually challenged. This particular example is no less ill-informed than Bat-Ass. I'm guessing what, as you suggest, and frankly, your assertion that on hard tails, all suspension movement is a function of legs acting as heavy vertical pistons is just nonsense. This presupposes no body movement whatsoever, no lateral rider shift on the saddle, no arm flex, head movement etc and we all know this is not how pedals get turned. Riders typically load significant body leverage into pedal forces, more particularly in low-traction applications. This is actual weight shift, not load shift BTW. Forget about "trail events" (there is a better word for that....bumps), and other BS. We've not even mentioned those and they go without saying. Once again, you clearly show your ignorance. Trail events are not just bumps. They are dips or hollows as well. Not all trail events are positive, JB, and for your ill-informed mind, that's why we sag suspensions - to account for negative trail events. But you didn't know that, or you wouldn't be displaying your ignorance so clearly. The fact that energy rebound also goes into shock extension is moot. Of course it goes in there... but the point is that it all requires energy that comes form one depletable source only - your legs. Once again, your red herring (now where did I learn that?) bootstrapping elevates your assertion into fact. I dispute your assertion that all suspension compression derives from only one depletable source - the legs. This is simplistic, common BS (to quote). Suspension loading, if you'd bothered to apply what passes for your mind, is not this linear leg weight force you make it out to be. It comes from all of the accumulated kinetic inputs, including bump-compression and lateral weight shift by the rider. You also say that there is no need for rebound energy to be fed back to the rider. That would be very desirable indeed, so the need is there, we just don't know how to do it. All that energy is lost to forward motion. Period. BS!! This is where bootstrapping gets you. Assertions based on false premises. See above. Compression damping is not complex like you claim. It is either a one-stage or two-stage affair requiring one or two shims. What's complex about that? Stop trying to hide simplicity in complexity. Multiple valves are in fact a way of trying to save some of the energy lost in bobbing. On the one hand you allude to huge R&D and on the other to suspension not consuming energy. You cant swing both ways on that point. More BS. More bootstrapping, more slipping of the cloak. You really don't understand suspensions, do you? Compression damping is a method of controlling and disipating all kinetic energy coming into a suspension, and for your ill-informed mind, that damping is most called for when you're bombing downhill - so where are the leg pistons then? Rider later movement causing suspension movement? I don't think so. That is the one movement that doesn't work on the suspension. Try it, you may find it novel. You have to be kidding!!! JB, this is like clubbing seals. Please don't take my word for it - go and read a bit on suspension designs on MTB's and you'll discover that lateral rider weight shift is one of the fundamental parameters requiring addressing. So it's not about what you think - as this post progresses, that is something you more clearly show little aptitude for. THEN, why not sag a rider on a full-suss bike and see what effect rider positioning/attitude has on the sag measurements. Then come back here and explain how lateral rider weight shift DOESN't affect sag. Given good traction, a rigid bike on a climb is more energy efficient than a suspended one. Stop pooh-poohing around the issue and blowing smoke up selective dissidents' arses. Once again, and just so anyone reading this post gets a clear picture of what bootstrapping is - please see the "Given good traction"!! Duh!!! In an earlier post I did say that lockout is best used when riding your MTB on a tar road. There is no doubt there are some small gains to be achieved - depending again on the design and setting of the suspension. But suspensions on MTB's are not made for climbing on tar roads. Or are you so stuck in your little world of ignorance that you can't see this? Can't you understand that so much of suspension design and compression-damping design is about maximizing traction? Talk about blowing smoke ....... . Trust me, pal, whatever I've had to say in this post is factual, reasoned and verifiable. Including the amounts of R&D monies that are allocated to suspension and compression-damping design. This stands in stark contrast to the buffoon-level tripe you have been spewing. Frankly, I expected better. But I'm under no pressure to pepetuate some myth or hype as being the font of all bicycle wisdom. I'll leave that to you and your saddle. And if disagreeing with you somehow makes me or anyone else a dissident - FFS pal, just exactly who do you think you are?? I don't subscribe to any other pissant dogma - why should I subscribe to yours?

You seem to know it all so let me summarize a) besides the fact that both have two wheels and a seat this is where the similarities between a bicycle and a motorbike stop. PM me and I can arrange a ride for you on a proper FS and a proper superbike. Then once you are finished I'll rip you panty so that your mommy can give you a good spanking when you get home b) you view regarding lockout is just that - YOUR VIEW. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion even if it is stupid. Maybe you should share your view with the engineers who design shocks' date=' I have this funny suspicion that you will either be hailed a saviour or they'll laugh at you. I know the answer but will leave it up to you to find out. Now go inside. Playtime is over. [/quote'] Good one, Chuck. You must have spent some time working out that post. It literally quivers with relevance. And I got my view on lockout FROM the engineers who design shocks. Tool. At least I do understand something about kinematics and kinetics as it applies to bicycle suspensions. And my posts were simply questioning-responses to assertions made here that seemed at odds with my (limited) understanding of these topics - particularly those made by JB. If this offends you, or anyone else, sorry. I'm just checking for some truths here. But drivel remains drivel, even mine!cyclequip12010-05-28 02:10:29

If I call it load transfer, I'm told no-one understands what I say. If I simplify it to weight shift, then I'm told I talk drivel. You in fact referred to weight shift yourself. Control your emotions and debate like a gentleman. More drivel. I used your term "weight shift". You brought it up, not me. Now you, the master of "use the right term"want to hide behind your own ignorance with some fatuous response about being told you're not being understood? Who told you this? And you have the gall to talk about debating? Like a gentleman? Do me a favour, don't mistake me for a fool and refrain from handing out advices - it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm in need of advice from the likes of you. The global warming quip is just that, a quip. You are right, I shouldn't have said ALL in that sentence, some of the energy goes elsewhere other than into the suspension. However, I don't agree with your assertion that most of it is returned. I think most of it is lost. The purpose of the shock is after all to damp and it does so on the compression and rebound stroke. Significant energy is lost. Back to some answers: I'm not concerned with your speculation about what quantum of energy is lost or returned in a suspension system. I'd like some actual data. This is what debating like a gentleman is about, isn't it? You said, in one sentence:" All the energy you lost in the bob is transfered to the shock as heat energy and dissipated to the atmosphere." Tell me this isn't drivel? The purpose of the shock is to control the movement of the rear axle relative to the rest of the frame and it does so primarily through the use of springs - these are air-compression chambers whose shaft speed is further controlled - under both compression and rebound - by damper circuits. The kinetic energy stored in the springs is not somehow lost through the separate damper circuits - it is simply controlled. I really don't think you understand suspensions ...... I don't know where BB sway entered the argument. Take it up elsewhere. This is elsewhere. My BB analogy, for your famously articulate mind, was simply that - an analogy about power being lost in kinetic instances. Like the kinetic instances of an air spring loaded up under compression. You seem to find a problem with my weight shift/load transfer analogy of a tandem and a motorbike. Let me change it, the stoker DOESN'T hold on. Will she fall off the back? I don't think so. What has this got to do with your assertions regarding weight shift? Let ME change it - what if the stoker was sitting vertically and not clipped in - simply balancing? Want to take a bet on what happens when the bike accelerates forward? Again, obfuscation masking the drivel. As for the BB moving down...reconsider what I said and take into account that the BB will want to move down because the chain wants to shorten the distance between BB and rear hub. If the link is flexible and biased downwards like in a suspension bike, it can only go down. More drivel and self-serving bootstrapping! Under chain forces the axle wants to meet the BB so vectors can be both forward and down but depending on the link configuration, the load transfer and front fork extension, there can be a resultant chain jacking upwards into a shock. The original question was when to use lockout and the answer is to use it when the suspension starts to rob you of your input or interferes with your stride. Well, this is your answer. Others say don't use the lockout because it doesn't rob you of your input (a nice, technical term that, from the tech wiz) or interferes with your stride (whatever this might mean, technically). Yet others design complex compression-damping technology to limit the movement under rider input but not trail input. Lockout is exactly that - might as well have a rigid for all the traction benefits you'll be getting. I'd suggest using lockout when riding your MTB on the road.

What drivel! What causes this massive weight shift from the front to the back of a car under acceleration??? This is a phenomenon known as load transfer and has nothing to do with a shift of weight. There might be a small weight transfer caused by small CoG displacement as a result of suspension pitch change, vertical suspension travel or tyre contact patch deformation, but that is all. How would this weight shift work in a solid suspension vehicle under acceleration? Or a vehicle witjh a massively long wheelbase?? Since this is a written medium, as you say, stop writing drivel and answer the question please. Quote some references, don't offer some pathetic, badly thought-out thought experiment. FYI the load shift phenomenon is exactly the same with a bicycle. Speed of acceleration simply goes to quantum of load shift but does not somehow negate load shift. When you sit on a pillion and the motorbike accelerates, the pillion rider experiences inertia, not weight shift!! When you are a stoker you are pulling on handlebars and pushing down on pedals - how on earth do you compare the two phenomena. Did you apply yourself at all to this answer, or are you simply unraveling your ignorance here and thinking everyone sucks up your nonsense? The torsion on a bicycle rear wheel will want to move the rear wheel forward, not the BB down. The resultant will be determined by pivot placement. On some designs this chain jacking will want to compress the shock. This causes bobbing. Our pedal action causes as much forward-backward motion as it does up-down. This causes bobbing. You say this robs power and you offer a quantitative equation to measure this. Please could you offer some substantiation of this, other than your speculative and questionable equation. Now please explain how in similar vein, on an unsuspended road bike, the deformation of a BB from side-to-side has never been shown or measured as a loss of power? You say all the energy of the shock compression is lost as heat and dissipated into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming? You evidently don't understand the concept of kinetic energy stored in the air spring of the suspension component, most of which is returned to the rider as the unit rebounds. Either this or you are being deliberately disingenuous. Either way, your responses are sheer nonsense.

The geometry of the Maestro is designed to resist chain jacking on the rear shock - but this is just one element of many factors affecting suspension kinetics. I believe the thrust of JB's assertion had more to do with weight shift under acceleration (and correct me if I'm wrong here) and to this end the Maestro won't help a rider shifting weight under hard pedal efforts (like when standing). This will cause "bobbing" easily as much as chain jacking. I'd still like to hear JB's reasoning as to why squatting under acceleration differs between cars and bicycles. Also, some detail on the power robbing that bobbing apparently causes, and why pedal acceleration (I assume seated, to assist JB's assertion) causes so little weight shift as to rule it out of the equation.cyclequip12010-05-26 07:44:27

From JB: I think the analogy is off kilter. Squatting under accelleration is completely different from bob during pedaling. Completely. Squatting under accelleration on a motorbike or car causes no power loss. It was mildly irritating on BeeEms but did not affect its accelleration. Bobbing whilst pedaling a bicycle produces lots of power loss. It messes with your rythm as well. I fail to see how a bike is designed so that the rear wheel digs in under accelleration. Rear wheel downforce is a function of the rider's weight and to an extent, the shift in weight caused by accelleration. However, we don't accellerate fast enough to cause any weight shift to the back, so that is moot. We do brake fast enough to cause the reverse though. A comparison of what happens when you brake hard and accellerate hard should make this clear to you. Since you are making some unsubstantiated statements here, perhaps, nuts and bolts you know, you could substantiate your claims and explain why you say what you say? cyclequip12010-05-26 05:52:01

Yes, the alu Comp is standard 1 1/8" threadless.

Neither does Polar but there is a way to get it to work. Instead of strapping the watch around your arm' date=' strap it around the transmitter belt right in the middle of your chest. It's not like you can look at the display while you are swimming but you do get the results to view later.[/quote'] Yes this does work but then the athletes complain that the belt gets pulled away from your chest by the drag. Frankly I never swim that fast!