MudLark

Hey 'Cois, thanks for the update! We are all rooting for you!

'Cois, there is indeed a legacy, if only on our hearts and minds. I for one will never forget all of this and your courage, which will always stand as monument in my mind.

Dear 'cois, I find these posts hard to read. I know you're going through an extremely unpleasant experience. I'm not going to offer you platitudes. But I will tell you that I often think of you and these posts and I admire your courage and fortitude. I do not know if you believe in God or prayer and I cannot tell you that prayer actually changes anything other than in the reassurance it brings to the mind of the one praying but every day I say a prayer for you. I, like many others here am - at a distance but nonetheless - with you on this step-by-step journey and we all hope for the very best outcome for you.

'cois, my thoughts are with you and I pray for the best possible outcome.

Bought a pair of Topeak Supersteel tyre levers for those stubborn tyres. Haven't used them yet for fitting a stubborn new tyre but they aren't great for getting tyres off. The ends are pretty blunt and one battles like heck to get the edge of the tyre lever under the lip of the tyre. Park Tool cheap blue plastic jobs work far better for that. [emoji85]

I absolutely agree. Not refunding is bad policy. Nobody will trust them with their money for the next entry.

[emoji17]

Look, I guess if you're racing at the top end of the game, the money may make sense. You may save yourself a few seconds or maybe even a minute or three over a longish race as opposed to one of the slightly older bikes. Maybe that makes the difference between a podium finish or not. But for a guy like me who is pretty much only trying to beat his mates and not be the last soul over the finish line, it just makes no sense at all. Nobody cares whether I finish in 3:30 or 3:35. Not even I really do! I just do the best I can and what I achieve is what I achieve. It's not even going to make a difference to my seeding! Honestly, I would rather spend the money on a couple of stage events and so forth, go see the country et cetera. My existing bikes are reliable and more than fast enough for me. It makes me think a little bit of my old Mercedes SLK32AMG (which I've now had for close on 20 years and only has about 60,000 km on it). Years ago, when I was still servicing it at Mercedes-Benz, they tried very hard to get me to trade it in on a 55 AMG. And the point I made to them was "What's the point? The SLK32AMG already has more power and speed in it than I can handle. I'm not actually going to get any more utility out of the newer and more expensive car." Same thing with the bicycle, really.

2020 Top Fuel is a very different bike to the 2018 Top Fuel. Lot more suspension travel, far more trail bike. Effectively they've changed where it fits in their lineup so as to leave the Supercaliber as the pure XC bike whereas before the role now filled by the Supercaliber was filled by the Top Fuel. So the earlier Top Fuel was the "true predecessor" in the Trek lineup to the Supercaliber. You can see this not only in the geometry and suspension setup but also in the weight. 2018 Top Fuel 9.9 official weight was 9.5 kg. 2020 Top Fuel 9.9 official weight is 11.1kg. Current 9.9 Supercaliber is 9.4kg. Effectively Trek have saved 100g and introduced a new model with the Supercaliber. Is it really better? Dunno. Like this new helmet material of theirs. Hard to tell where the line is between the actual technical gain and the marketing noise. In the end, they're about selling bicycles at the best margin they can.

*

I went to look at one this morning. I currently have a 2018 Top Fuel 9.8SL. Pure XC bike. It's got the Re:Aktiv rear shock. I bought it specially because of that shock. Only two options, locked or not locked. Locked is the default. Bit of a stiffer ride but climbs like an absolute goat and gives you no bob whatever. Fox 32 stepcast two way in the front. 11.15kg. A bit heavy as these things go. Bit heavier now with dropper post et al. The Top Fuel 9.9 for comparative purposes is 9.5kg. Supercaliber 9.9 is 100g lighter than the same category predecessor 9.9 Top Fuel. But it's about 180k ZAR. I looked at how the suspension moves with the Supercaliber. Seems different to my Top Fuel. A bit more like my Procaliber (converted into a hybrid gravel bike now). I just can't get my head around the price of this thing. In my mind, I recently bought an "as new" very low mileage 4wd Subaru Forester for less than that. Unlike you I'm never going to be on a podium. For one thing, age is against me. I was also a late starter on a bicycle. The guys at the Trek shop tell me they don't sell many Supercalibers. One here, one there. Mainly to the "Melrose Arch crowd" who want to be seen on the best and latest. Okay, cool, fair enough. I'd like to take one out and play with it for a few hours at Northern Farm. Go climb some hills with it. But all in all, I reckon my Top Fuel needs to do a few more years duty. It's a good bike. It's good for me. Climbs well. Pretty fast too. Especially since I put those blackchilli RaceKing 2.2's on. Goes like a raped ape. Maybe not Supercaliber fast but much faster than my mates' MTBs. And it does trail work pretty okay too. I'll look out for you when you come past me. Be a gentleman and move to the left and cheer you on too!

So, I think it depends upon the individual. I am one of those blokes – and it is actually quite a common condition – that doesn't at first realise that he is thirsty. It's something I actually need to think about; by the time I realise that I am thirsty, I am actually pretty far down the ladder already. So for me, it works better to have a sort of timeframe within which to think about drinking. So on a hot day, I will reach for my bottle little bit more during the course of an hour. Et cetera. It's more a function of mindfulness and awareness than actually forcing yourself to drink what you don't need. A bit of a confusing explanation but I hope it makes some kind of sense.

48 degrees must be approaching the limits of endurance for the average cyclist.

Vetplant, not sure but suspect air movement on a bicycle leads to a (much?) higher fluid loss rate. I used to find the same when riding motorbikes long distances in hot weather with light clothing. You lose a lot of fluid. Even though you're just sitting there.

Spinnekop, it's true that as I've become fitter and stronger I have also found that I need less water than before. I don't fully understand why but it is true. But... If you speak to a nephrologist (kidney specialist) they'll tell how incredibly hard these endurance events are on the kidneys and how you can permanently damage your kidneys (friend of mine did on last year's Amashova). You simply have to drink enough fluid. My coach (well known former pro) says that on a hottish day, one should be drinking about a bottle an hour. We're all different, genetically and otherwise. Maar wees net 'n bietjie versigtig met jou niere. Kidney replacements can't be had at CycleLab.... Use it, don't use.

Fat Sheep, I don't know how many people entered but if you look at the results only about 300 or so actually started.

Jirre, you one water bottle maargatte. [emoji39] On a hot day ( say circa 30C or more) a bloke like me goes through 3 to 4 bottles quite easily on a ride like that!

Droo, probably right.The pin goes through both inner and outer plates. But one set of plates has to be able to rotate on the pin. So presumably the inner plate holes are very slightly larger than those in the outer plates (in which the pin is "secured"). Thus there is a wear interface between the pin and inner plate which may increase in size with time - possibly even becoming somewhat oval. And thus the chain over time becomes fractionally longer. That would seem to be the most rational answer.

Any info re waterpoints? None on the FatSheep except for one DIY emergency point with limited water at about the halfway mark.

Thanks Skylark, but there's no contact between the rollers and the pins. And thus apparently no wear on the pins. Only between the roller and inner plate shoulder (take a chain apart and you will see what I mean [emoji3166]). Further, if you press out a pin on a worn chain, it seems to require as much force as on a new chain. So why does the chain nevertheless get longer overall?

Ah. Thanks for that. Apologies.

Question here: Why does a chain get longer with use? I was looking at the components. The rollers ride on a stamped shoulder that is part of the inner plates. There's no contact between the roller and the pin. None. So the wear is between the roller and the plate shoulder. So the distance between two rollers will increase over time - which is what a lot of chain gauges measure. But given that, why does the chain as a whole also become longer then? What wears?

Well, same organizers just ran Race to the Sun last weekend, didn't they?

François, I have been following this thread for some time although I have not commented. I am only going to say that my heart is truly with you and I will be continuing to follow your story.

Been riding this bike a bit today for the first time after fitting a 35mm stem, new seatpost and pedals and doing a rough setup. My oath but the thing works brilliantly. It's waaay better than what I was hoping for. It's got really good handling, it rolls and climbs well on the 43 Panaracer SK Gravelkings and oh man, its comfortable. It's really good!