Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

For him to say that...

Yes

Ja it does.

As a front tyre, not as much. Think of the tyres on a rear /front wheel drive car. The non drive side tyres wear far slower than the drive side tyres. Same concept. You want grip. A consequence of that is slightly faster wear, but it's definitely worth it. No problem with the 2.4 on the giant rims. Ideally you'd want a wider rim, but they're absolutely fine on my PAM2's which are 24mm internal.

Quick post-course spin at conties

Don't skimp. Ibex.

SEE MY POST ABOVE Don't skimp on grip for the front. Hardly any rolling resistance when pedalling as it has hardly any weight on it, but when it gets gnarly you want it to grip. Sick of weight weenie tyres and "rolling resistance" when it comes to front tyres. Then people wonder why their fast rolling tyres wash out all the time...

WTF!?

Hmmm?

"Pretty much anyone" Not "everyone" There's a difference. And yes, I acknowledge that some people it may be dangerous to go by the 220-age. But again, it's appropriate for the vast majority of their target market

1

You don't need to train for extensive periods. Just 30 min at 80% will give you 300 points. That's far from extensive and should be easy for pretty much anyone.

You don't need to train for extensive periods. Just 30 min at 80% will give you 300 points. That's far from extensive and should be easy for pretty much anyone.

Same

Yes, I know. The if was related to vitality approving such a test for use in their active rewards program

Absolutely. When I think of a trail bike in addition to the reign, I just remember that with a few more psi in the suspension and lighter tyres my reign is more than capable. Especially given that I can lower the fork to 130mm which makes a big difference to how it climbs (seat tune angle)

Agreed fully with your first comment, and something that I've said to the guys at Disco several times now. Now just to wait and see. As for your 2nd point - yes, IF like you say there is a test for max HR and that becomes *your* level on which the percentages are based. Unfortunately if there's no test or verification, it again opens the system up to serious gaming, as people could lower their max HR on the Garmin / Vitality side and therefore qualify for max efforts whilst only actually doing 50%. The long and short of it is that the age based HR is the only way to apply an HR band to such a large selection of people. Some will lose out, sure. But it'll be applicable to the large majority of people.

Still loving this thing and its intended purpose. Was on my shortlist for bikes when looking last year. Would LOVE to have one as my 2nd bike

No, he should not adjust his training program just because Discovery say so and his points are out. Blatant disregard - yes, the percentages are out, but it's still early days on a model that is based on BEHAVIOURAL ANALYTICS. It's subject to change as and when new data comes through, and it's only a week since the new model has been implemented. I guarantee you that it WILL change again when the new data comes through, and as a result of feedback from brokers (such as myself) on how the metrics should change to be a sliding scale based on elapsed time ie: 80% for 30 min, 75% for 60, 70% for 90 etc etc. Remember - it was changed to the current model thanks to flagrant abuse, and probably many people hitting the 80% target over extended periods (I for one have no problem hitting my 80% Age rated max for 4 plus hours - I suspect the majority of the target market - the sedentary bastids who this is primarily aimed at - are in the same boat) Besides - you shouldn't be basing your exercise on what level of points you get. The points are a side effect, and unless you're in the Apple Watch brigade (which I am) you should be targeting the program, not the points. Give it time. Let them have a look at the data they receive over the next month, now that the allocations are (apparently) unachievable. Yes, in DI's case this is a silly metric - a 4 hour ride is a 4 hour ride, and it should get more than 100 points. But for the moment, as far as he's not running an accepted brand of HR monitor and / or he stays below 70% of max HR, he won't. To finish - it's still a kaaak load easier to get points than it was last year. Were the guys complaining then, when they only got 100 points per ride, even at max efforts? No. Will it probably change in teh next month or 2? Yes. Most likely.

Yes, and to that matter it's still helluva easy to get to gold. Heck, DI probably got there in the first 10 days of January, like a lot of people here did. But even at 100 points per ride (assuming he doesn't do HIIT training and max his HR then) he'd still get to his max fitness allocation within 300 days. If he did ONE HIIT training session a week in addition to the daily stuff, he'd get there so much faster. 30 weeks instead of 300 days. 2 HIIT sessions per week etc etc. Add the normal monthly checks he probably does (BP / Glucose / Cholestorol etc) and he's at gold very quickly. He's moaning for the sake of it.

Bandwagoning.

Ah. No support. What does that back end to?

Sure he's using a Garmin or similar device... But still. Average HR of less than 70% of age rated HR means it only counts for 100 points as it gets listed as a "distance" exercise - not moderate or vigorous.

DOOOOO EEEEET!!! Cite mental instability or something. Be there. See you then!

You're a bit late to the party... Was shown in the last couple of pages.