JXV

Tallboy pedal bob is not an issue if you buy a frame with the original oe shock and keep it properly maintained. My LTc came with a Fox Factory CTD shock. Works exactly as it says on the tin if you keep it serviced. Practically locked out in Climb mode but still compliant over harsh bumps. Don't forget it has VPP suspension links . Chain tension caused by pedalling works against suspension movement by tucking the lower link up against the bb. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

According to a few reviews the plus tyres are VERY pressure sensitive. Just 2psi can be the difference between bouncy and too soft. I have yet to try a set. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Registered my LTc but I have to depressure the shock and cycle the suspension on the Hightower to get at the serial number ....what a dumb place to put it. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Lots been said about the size of the jumps in number of teeth between cogs........ What you have to remember is that it is proportional. So a 4 tooth jump from 11t to 15t would be horrendous - it changes the ratio by about 40% but a 4 tooth jump from 32t to 36t only changes the ratio by about 12% So, on the Eagle cassette and other not-quite-as-wide-range cassettes like the Shimano 11-46, the big tooth difference between granny and 2nd gear is not quite as bad as it appears when you actually ride them. In Shimano's case though I think they missed a trick. Their 11-46 XT cassette goes from 37t to 46t, a jump of 9 teeth. The gap is noticeable when you ride it. I ride a 29er with 34 front ring and 11-46 rear. I can climb almost anything I need to ride in that 46 but it is noticeably slow and the only other option is the 37t which can be be a bit tough. Shimano must have had a reason for their choice but the equivalent Sunrace cassette goes from 40t to 46t and I think it might suit me better - or I need to HTFU Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

yes I have and the jumps are bigger when compared to 2x10 or 2x11 in smaller climbing chainring. You have to take the overall gearing of both the chainring and the cassette into account. In the climbing gears, a 2x system gives 4 choices where a 1x system offers 3 over the same span of ratios - see Iwan's table of overall ratios in a previous post. This means the jumps between the lower gears in the 1x system average about 33% larger than in an equivalent 2x system. And I can feel it when climbing. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Eddy Yeah....gearing wise 2x10 is better....more range than all but maybe Eagle and smaller steps so it is easier to get a good speed and rhythm when climbing and also more top end but here are the pros of 1x - lighter by about 400g - new systems offer almost the range of 2x. If you are really fit or ride in less mountainous areas you may not need the full 2x10 / 2x11 range anyway. - no chain drops on my setup in over 2 years - can mount my dropper lever on the left under the bar where the front shifter used to be. ergonomically this is way better than all other options - less cables - 1x is quiet....really quiet - better chainring clearance over logs and stuff. I only have the one bike but if I had an XC bike and a trail bike it would be 2x10/2x11 on the XC and 1x11 on the trail bike. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Drak Descent Underberg....very wet and muddy. Went more sideways than forwards Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

27.5+, not 27.5....big difference! Hightower has clearance for up to 3.0 tyres on 45mm 27.5+ rims but 2.8 plus wheels are preferred. These have almost the same rolling diameter as 29er. If you put normal 27.5 wheels on the average modern 29er you'll likely get a lot of pedal strikes due to lowering the bb by about 20mm with the smaller wheels. Lot of Hightower owners choose 150mm forks so that they have the option to swap between 27.5+ and 29er wheelsets without adjusting fork travel. I agree with you that 10mm difference in fork travel can't be that drastic in terms of handling but given that the bike is long and slack, adding more travel lifts the front in climbs and may make it wander a bit more on steep ascents. Between 140/150 forks and hi/low flip chip positions you can adjust the geo a bit. I get less pedal strikes on Highrower than on the TB LTc but i still wouldn't run the flip chip in low with 27.5+ wheels on..... Some guys are also 'long shocking' their Hightowers to get 150mm rear travel but this voids warranty and maybe also longevity. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I'm sure loving mine. Interesting comment about it riding high with the RCT shock.....mine rides lowish with a Fox FloatX fitted with the Evol air can. For my weight around 88 - 90kg I have to run about 320psi to get 30%sag (shock limit is 350) and it is still super plush. I would prefer less sag, maybe 25% but this puts the shock pressure close to the limit. I think its not the bike's fault though...maybe Evol aircans are not intended for riders in my weight class. So mine bobs a bit when pedalling in open mode but I use the Med setting a lot on the flats and hills, and Firm mode on tar. At the front I have a 150 Pike. Running 29er wheels with 2.3 rubber. Have not tried a 27.5+ set yet. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Cost all-in from CWC if I may ask? Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nice....just don't try pumping plus tyres to 17.0bar as depicted....[emoji48] Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I took the previous version for a test ride and liked it. Very responsive when you mash the pedals and the ride was firm but very well controlled. Loved it. Its not a trail bike though and that's what I was looking for at the time. Would be on my shortlist if I was looking for an XC bike. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

eish....where was I? Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Is that a lift/bathroom selfie? I thought the hub disapproves of people who post those to inflate their egos? Just checking.....[emoji48] Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Their ethical rules require them to treat you as a patient 1st and not as a sportsman. Some of the stuff on the WADA list is life saving or best choice, so they'll use it, especially in emergency. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I take issue with the mantra that you can't race if you aren't feeling well and requested some treatment. Not all illnesses are imminently life threatening or require you to immediately withdraw from a competition. The real problems are : -1 that the WADA infringements are based on qualitative detection. Even trace amounts that don't constitute sufficient dosage for a beneficial effect during the race can get you banned -2 the TUE process is too drawn out. A mechanism needs to be provided for an athlete receiving treatment during an event (stage race?) to submit TUE application and a 'before treatment' sample. Then go race. If the TUE is not subsequently awarded then at least the athlete was honest and does not deserve sanction for having that substance in his system. Results can be made provisional and prize money withheld until any pending TUE applications are finalised. -3 the current system requires us all to be medical experts. The issue of knowledge comes up frequently in these cases and I think the average athlete is not empowered to act appropriately under the current system. As a chemical engineer I can at least pronounce some of those names and I may even be able to guess the structure of some of them but I sure can't remember them all. And if I was nauseous and dehydrated in the medical tent before a stage then I doubt I would be thinking with any great clarity. -4 V12man is right that the doctor should treat the patient appropriate to the illness without restriction by sporting rules. But there is overlap....alternative drugs not on the WADA list may be useable. A doctor attending a competition should have some WADA knowledge and be able to advise their patients of the consequences of the treatment given. Perhaps WADA should offer courses and a protocol for medical professionals who can then become WADA certified and this certificate could be a factor in selecting medical personnel to attend at races. If this guy was genuinely doping then sanction him but there seems to be cause for doubt in this case. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The thing with potential energy (eg pressure) is that it becomes more hazardous when an accidental release is directed or concentrated. So a better way to reduce the hazard is to absorb/dissipate the energy. This is why I previously suggested using an old blanket Your cannon will be ok as long as it is restrained and both ends point at open spaces. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Basically you made a howitzer. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Just so everyone is on board with pressure....1 bar is approx 13.7 psi. So 100 psi = about 7 bar. Pumping stuff to this pressure also results in temperature changes that weaken the plastic. If you must do this with a PET soft drink bottle then cover the thing with a heavy blanket or two for safety when in use. 150psi in a 2 litre bottle becomes instantaneously about 20 litres when it bursts so placing a solid object like a drum over it for protection just makes a bigger missile. Be safe. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

If they attempt to recover the penalties by simply raising prices they will be less competitive and we will buy elsewhere. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Interesting. The way they determine penalty and the principle that silent attendance at a meeting constitutes acceptance of any agreement reached unless one makes it publicly clear that you don't agree. Also the principle that remaining silent means one is party to the financial harm caused to customers and also that it conceals the anti competitive behaviour, delaying its discovery and correction. There is also an onus to disclose such behaviour to authorities once you become aware of it. Coolheat gets hit with R4.25m because they failed to provide data that would have indicated a lower affected turnover ( they only apparently increased RRP on 94 out of 4000 stock items but failed to isolate the value thereof and were thus fined using their total turnover as a basis). Seems a bit harsh and I bet they are not overly happy with their legal team's advice.....the 6 step principle for determining the penalty was available from recent case law and could have been applied to the appeal even though it probably wasn't available when the original finding was made by the tribunal. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

So, will the prices now go up or down? Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Long list in post #204 further back in this thread..... quoted from an online news site....some well known names. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Glad they lost the appeal. What they did was clearly illegal. I can't believe so many other business owners got hooked in and didn't even bother to read the regulations before attending. The fact that the agenda blatantly indicated the purpose of the meeting is enough proof of guilt. My problem is the fine is way too low. Typically the competition tribunal/commission fines 10% on affected turnover. These guys colluded to increase retail prices by an additional 15 to 25% over their prevailing margins so after a 10% slap on the wrist the effort was still worthwhile for them. I don't see the disincentive here. The fingered retailers were all let off and only 2 wholesalers punished with a nominal fine. Crime did pay in this case. The proof is in the pudding as I have not seen decreases or even a period of levelling off in bike / parts costs and I think they are still doing it. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Was quoted a new one at R42k a few months back. Includes rear shock and axle and RD hanger. Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk