CAAD4 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 It's cheaper, they are watching their budget, for sure.... EmptyB 1
Ryanpmb Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Why is everything XX1 but the cassette is XO1....any idea?Retirement. Can't just go splashing out on expensive parts... EmptyB and nathrix 2
Ryanpmb Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 The 1.95 tyres, combined with presumably wider rims than days gone by, actually make sense to me - given the particular circumstances.
robsc Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Retirement. Can't just go splashing out on expensive parts... Don't think Sauser has paid for a bicycle/parts for the last 15 yearsÂ
Ryanpmb Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Don't think Sauser has paid for a bicycle/parts for the last 15 years  #jestÂ
jannosmit Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Why is everything XX1 but the cassette is XO1....any idea? X01 is lighter than XX1 by a few grams. A lot of guys run it like that on the XCO circuit and many bikes actually come out like that. EmptyB 1
NelAndre Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 What a beast! Also amazed to see everything that fits into the little black box.... Loved the joke about the cost saving, too sharp Ryan!
EmptyB Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Retirement. Can't just go splashing out on expensive parts... Yeah....I can see how they cost cutting everywhere on that bike
hboli4 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 The 1.95 tyres, combined with presumably wider rims than days gone by, actually make sense to me - given the particular circumstances. Wouldn't it be better to run a wider tyre which you can run at a lower pressure for the rocky/sandy terrain? I am not that 'technically' minded so maybe completely wrong.
Ryanpmb Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Wouldn't it be better to run a wider tyre which you can run at a lower pressure for the rocky/sandy terrain? I am not that 'technically' minded so maybe completely wrong. Yip. Agreed. For us average Joes. But, given he's a seasoned pro and can probably handle a bike over this terrain in his sleep there's something to be said for less resistance vs fatigue etc... Something to consider too is that given the wider rims he'd be running,those 1.95s probably behave much the same as say, a 2.1 on rims 2 or 3 years ago. Interesting choice which ever way you look at it. hboli4 1
hboli4 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Yip. Agreed. For us average Joes. But, given he's a seasoned pro and can probably handle a bike over this terrain in his sleep there's something to be said for less resistance vs fatigue etc... Something to consider too is that given the wider rims he'd be running,those 1.95s probably behave much the same as say, a 2.1 on rims 2 or 3 years ago. Interesting choice which ever way you look at it. Aaaahhhh I understand, as you say makes sense.Â
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 What Ryan said. Also, weight. Ryanpmb 1
'Dale Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) That Rotor thing near the pedals  Edited March 18, 2016 by Puncheur
Spez247 Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Amazing looking bike. Pity the Rand is in the neighbourhood that its in.... What concerns me isn't the width of the tires, its the fact that they are Renegades. I ride the 2.3 up in Gauteng, on our gravel highways, and although I really like them, grip isn't on of there top 5 attributes. Don't know how he does it, but he has been riding them, since the Burry days. Respect, to a great cycling ambassador.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now