Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

Btw - scalpel is an out n out racer. Steep head angle, stiff rear end. Giant is a bike thay can easily cross over into the trail bike category and is more comfortable. Slacker head angle. More stable at speed. Better in the rough stuff

Yeah, I am. In part due to the value that they offer, but also cos it's kinda like a dw bike as well

Anthem. Always, always anthem

Indeed. Stable in a straight line and in non tech situations. as soon as you need to turn, or go over a small bump, that "stability" is lost

500/50 - very twitchy - requires very small movements to point in the right direction. 500/100 - not as twitchy, but very unstable (weight further forward on the bike so you can't really position yourself properly 500/200 - EXTREMELY unstable. Steering input would be extremely dull, but you'd also be very unstable. Think time trial bike, in the drops at the front. Not anywhere near as stable as your weight would be far in front of the axle.

when?

Download Tapatalk, and register using your profile. It automatically resizes any pic you post.

oh, and I'd go for the TREK, if only for that Penske shock...

Lurgie is back. Lightie had bronchitis, and now we ALL have some sort of bug.

But... i think that sort of design was first done by trek. I think.

Ugh.... i really don't know that. They're completely different suspension designs even though it's still a 3 pivot linkage, but if you mean the floating shock design.. I dunno

similar to, but very diffferent. Front triangle is very similar. But it's a newer age bike, and there's only a limited amount of ways you can shape tubing. As for the rear - the primary pivot point on the Pyga is higher, the top rocker is smaller and the rear pivots above and in front of the rear axle. The Trek's rear pivot is ON the axle, and the top rocker is longer, creating a different leverage ratio. similar to, but vastly different.

Just confirmed superstar has a bigger flange separation on their 150mm hubs. its quite large as well... 58mm on the 135/142 (36/22 non drive/drive) vs 70mm (40/30) so it's actually a mahoosive difference in width.

Don't let GILF read that, she may get jealous of the muffing activities...

Again, what do you consider to be "overly wide" 720? 750? 780? I run 750's on a 40mm stem. Actually thinking of going back to 780 as I had that much more control (yes, just 15mm a side makes the difference) but my fore-arms are outwardly splayed - it gives me more breathing room, better control and more balance. Am I considered as one of your monkeys?

In this case, you're right - but the generalisation remains...

Just as I booted the last bug, my lightie's other (newer) bug catches. Glory.

ze Hope?

Yeah, but then you don't get the added stiffness on the separation of flanges. Or do you!? Do 150mm hubs have a wider separation factor on the flanges? Google to my rescue...

Pretty much exactly my thoughts, Dave. But then the 27.5 version still goes on 142mm hubs, so it's fine! 29er needs the additional stiffness for sure. No getting around that. But to forego an existing standard just because it'll necessitate them moving the dropouts 1mm further out each side!?

BAHAHAHAHA!!! 100%, Wyatt.

WHY ONLY 29!?

Reasons shown above... but yeah, I agree with you. Should be a way around it with adequate design and construction. It's just another 1mm. And can be achieved by offsetting dropouts a bit...

Speak for yourself...

LOL. Dan, that's exactly what Deon said on Facebroek... SO please, don't move it, anyone! Sweet feature coming up!