DanielJhb

...

For anyone interested - https://www.bikehub.co.za/classifieds/300539-giant-toughroad-with-upgrades-bargain/

New build finally finished. Carbon Stumpy 650B. Full Build: Carbon Stumpy 650B Rockshox Pike RCT3 150mm Fox Float Factory Kashima 150mm Spank 295 Rims on Hope Pro 4 Hubs, Purgatory Rear (grid), Butcher Front XT 1x11 Drive Train, Hope Narrow Wide Chain Ring Hope Tech 3 e4 Brakeset, Floating 180mm rotors Spank Spike 50mm Stem Fatbar Carbon Lite handlebars ODI Chunky grips Reverb stealth dropper post WTB Volt saddle Hope Seatclamp DMR Vault flat pedals

My new n+1: Giant toughroad, Easton carbon bar, arch ex's on hope 4, XT groupo. Weighing in at around 10kg after upgrades. Loving this bike.

So I enjoy an occasional punt on soccer/tennis etc through the online sites but I can't seem to find a single site that offers markets on UCI downhill events, which is strange considering the huge variety of other sports avl, from local mma to darts and even politics. Almost all sites offer markets on road races and tour De France. Anyone have any thoughts on why?

I had the 120 for 6 months and am now on the Pascoe. They are both extremely versatile and the use of either completely depends on the build. Stick some 2.4 tyres, wide rims, short stem/long bar and a 140mm pike on the 120 and you have a very capable trail/enduro rig. Fit it with 2.2's, a revelation and a carbon cockpit and you have a very capable stage race bike. The Pascoe is more an out and out trail bike and there is a noticeably "lag" when putting the power down out of corners compared to the 120, and you do feel ever so slightly more disconnected from the trail due to the increased travel. That may be a pro or con though depending on how rough/rocky the trail is and how you like to ride. On technical/rocky descends the Pascoe shines and the monarch plus/pike combo means you can take straight lines through rock gardens and less finesse is needed on technical sections than with a 120/revelation setup. I found the 120 to be slightly short on travel at the rear, especially with a progressive shock tune. Bottom line, you'll be happy with either and can set them up differently each month depending on whether you'll be bombing black runs or doing joburg 2c.

I'm running a xt medium cage, 11-42 with 34 up front - no problems.

Stage Max would've been a better nomination...just saying

Pascoe build finally finished

I wish they had the same sort of segments they do on the cross-country feed, showing what bike setup they run for the different courses (shocks, tyres, flats/cleats, rebound etc)

My Pascoe looking rather sexy this afternoon on the Spruit

The shock on my 2015 Pascoe (Monarch debonair plus) is making a "squeaking" noise when compressed more than about 15-20%. Has anyone else had this/is it normal? The bike has only done about 350kms. Any advice would be appreciated.

travel?

pm sent

Any idea what suggested fork travel will be? Usually it's 20mm up from the rear?

Is the 160 carbon or alu? What forks are guys running on them? 160 pike or something longer?

I'm keen to split cost. Message me your details

So sick. Haven't been this jealous in a while! When you getting it?

I hear you, it's just 6 seconds difference over one split purely because of stiffer setup is almost unbelievable, the other guys didn't seem to really make any glaring mistakes on that section. Anyway am interested to see if the other guys run their bikes a bit stiffer on Sunday, guess it will depend on the course. No one could come close to him last time I hope it's a closer race this weekend.

Agree with you but if I had Gwin's skills I would be riding a rigid on most of our trails...

Agree with you, it makes sense when you look at the design I guess. I don't want to bottom out through rock gardens - the 120 I find more sort of "skips" over rock gardens instead of getting bogged down in it's travel (a big plus in my mind) - but I would like to use more than 100mm of travel when doing reasonably sized drops or jumps. I think the linkage design "adds" to the available travel and so the o-ring probably isn't a 100% accurate way to determine how much travel you've actually used. If that makes any sense.

I honestly still don't see how Gwin made up so much time between check points even running such stiff suspension, it was crazy, I've watched it a few times and even guys who didn't make mistakes were losing 5/6 seconds on him between checkpoints 1 and 2.

Question was more a technical one regarding whether or not the 120 can be run at 40%, like the 110 apparently can be (as per their website), without compromising the frame or geometry too much. I know the reason it doesn't reach full travel is the floating shock suspension design and the ramp up setting towards the bottom of the travel. Has nothing to do with riding style or trail type, guys a lot more aggressive than me aren't able to "bottom out" the 120, 140. Granted, it's not the worst "problem" in the world to have, but on bigger drops it's nice to know you using more than 90mm of travel especially when using full available 140mm at the front. I just came across a similar post from 2013 which has been of some help and have also dropped them a mail, will let you know what they say.

That would be true IF we were running the same air pressures, which we obviously aren't. Do you see Manon Carpenter or Rachel Atherton using 20% of their suspension on downhill runs? (they both weigh less than 65kg, and if you've watched Downhill before you'll see they often bottom out their bikes which have over 200mm of travel).

Is that a serious question? If I wanted a bike with less travel I would have bought one.