This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Zinjanthropus
31
« on: February 28, 2015, 10:33:37 PM »
@ric - Funny you say that. Just today I installed an 11-28 Ultegra cassette to a new CX wheel and for a moment I imagined how nice it would be to have the lighter cassette on my mtb. I think I'll have to consider that option instead when I am ready to move to a 32t chainring. The cassette change impacts a lot more of my spares, namely all cassettes would have to change if I don't want to swap chains regularly for a wheel change. Not entirely cost effective, but your config definitely bears attention for someone doing a drivetrain rebuild. Thanks for the idea!
32
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:22:58 PM »
I chose to add a bash guard as well. I figured since it's my only chainring for getting me back to my car I decided to add a bit of insurance to that role, overkill as it may be 99% of the time. Without ISCG tabs I settled on the MRP XCG variant. Hmmmm http://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/1720197/^^ Yes those are 170mm which not everyone will appreciate. I did size down to 170mm when I converted. I figure I must look like a toddler now and then, spinning my legs like crazy but always going slower than the big kids.
33
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:32:03 AM »
Ever ride your MTB downtown on the road or bike paths?
Uh, no. I prefer dirt or snow under my tires 
Sorry, this was a general question and should have been directed more to WJB but I failed to clarify that. My point was that riding a mountain bike on smooth flat roads and paved paths isn't a great use of the bikes features, but it can make for a unique and fun experience. The same can be said for having more travel in your suspension than a trail demands. There have been a few times when I've been at a new unfamiliar trail when I was caught off-guard by an unexpected drop and was very grateful to have that extra travel at hand. Of course a more skillful and aware rider need not rely on their equipment to save them...
35
« on: February 26, 2015, 08:30:01 PM »
I have a Cannondale RZ140 four (140mm) and with a couple upgrades its a <25lb sweet ride and has never felt like too much.
That does sound like a sweet ride! I'd be hard pressed to get mine near that weight without removing parts. I've had 30lbs as my soft limit in bike weight for anything that wouldn't be considered a DH specific model, on 26" wheels. I'm not sure what the going expected weight for an aluminum SLX level 29er FS bike but would always figure on some topping that mark. One should be able to get away with more weight in a 29er FS due to the obvious lower rolling resistance. My philosophy when it comes to weight is "I'll put the parts I prefer on my ride and whatever weight it is will be the ideal weight." It's too easy to get caught up in trimming bike fat, I have more than enough of the human variety to shed right now. Ever ride your MTB downtown on the road or bike paths? It may be too much bike on many levels but it's a heck of a lot of fun! Just sayin'...
36
« on: February 26, 2015, 06:13:50 PM »
Have you ever looked at it as suspension vs. no suspension? I mean really, all our local trails have been ridden successfully by someone plenty of times with no suspension at all on their bike. We don't "need" suspension but generally speaking it sure does make the ride easier. More travel makes bigger hits easier- the drops at TRTP, the logpiles at SWW, etc. If you see yourself wanting to go big more than you did on your HT, then grab the 140mm option. If high-speed roller hopping and catching air aren't your thing, you won't use the bonus travel even if it's there because you'll choose a different line, go slower, or avoid the trails with bigger features altogether. What's the weight difference between 120mm & 140mm hardware on the same bike? Marginal I'm sure. Will there be a climbing penalty by going 140mm? That depends on which frame and thus overall design that goes with it. Having a CTD option really addresses the travel issue for me, I'm sure others who have it might agree. The other camp will argue that a better suspension design wouldn't necessitate those options. I see it as a blessing. I'm pretty certain I chose my bike by first deciding on 6" of travel, then finding used ones that fit the bill. It worked for me but there are obviously so many considerations we all face, some formulas work better than others for each of us. Just giving you more food for thought, all strictly opinion. You'll have a blast on any of the steeds on your list regardless of travel. Definitely tell us what you choose in the end so we can all tell you that you have too much bike when we see you on the trails!  (and you can tell me the same in return) ~Yet another Dave
37
« on: February 25, 2015, 01:54:08 PM »
Near as I see the Tallboy & Spearfish have steeper HTAs which if you're not pointed down will be advantageous over the Yeti and many of the IN trails, but might be less confidence-inspiring when you head further West or East to real mountains. Without knowing actual build weights it's hard to say which bike will perform a certain way. Some bikes feel light when ridden and they aren't, others just the opposite. If you're not racing then a 1-2lb difference won't break your back, in my opinion. Deciding on a bike when $2k+ is on the line isn't an easy thing to rush but you know yourself better than anyone. Are you aiming to be on a more aggressive bike or are you content with not pushing your boundaries? If you're used to 100mm of travel then 140mm might feel awkward, at least for awhile. Then again with the engineering that goes into bikes these days, it may not feel much different, only showing its capabilities when the time calls for it. Some forks can be travel limited, if only temporarily via built-in features, other times through internal bumpers, should you really have a change of heart later. It sounds like you need to find a Yeti-SB95 and ride it locally to get that concern out of the way. Decisions decisions! Oh, and I agree with AL on the thru axle statement. I can't change the rear on my bike but I moved from QR to 15mm up front and it was a noticeable improvement. I think AL is correct regarding weight and his traction observation. Since we don't all test ride 50 different bikes every season and have our weight-detection-sensors finely tuned, I tend to believe those review statements, with AL's description being an easier explanation. 
38
« on: February 25, 2015, 09:56:39 AM »
Interesting to note that about fat tires too- that riding after the hikers have "blabbed" and pitted it up makes it harder for even those wider floaty tires. I am in agreement from the 2.3" tire side of things and suffered briefly at Fort Ben Saturday morning as feet had beat me to Schoen. I gave up after the topside semi-loop.
Taking your MTB on the road before the plows come or people wake up and "ruin" the surface is a dreamy feeling. I'm not put off by 5" of snow but expect toes to need brushing off regularly. After car tire treads have chopped things up it gets interesting and keeps you on your toes but still worth riding.
39
« on: February 25, 2015, 09:29:33 AM »
I'll show with my lesser endowed bike. My sinuses have been kicking my butt lately, but so far no drop in energy. I'm curious on numbers registered for this event. Should be a (cold) blast of a race. None of my friends wanted any part of it.
To the PAIN!
~Yet another Dave
40
« on: February 24, 2015, 11:25:08 PM »
WJB - Who gets to define the term "too much bike"? You're looking at a 29er, so it won't be a slouch once it gets rolling. I only see 140mm Fox forks on the custom Jenson builds, maybe I missed the 130. Regardless, if you are worried about travel for local trails, what is the concern? That you'll spend more $ for a bike that can take bigger hits than most of our trails offer and thus the extra cost will be wasted in some manner? Or is it a psychological thing, that if everyone tells you you're doing it wrong you'll be chastised on the trail? With your fork/shock having CTD options, that solves most of your efficiency concerns. What else could "too much" imply? Too wide of tires? So buy something in 2.1" for the rear for the smoothies like Town Run and such. It can't be too many gears, nor too much chainstay. I can't speak too much on the HTA but my bike is also 68.5 degrees and these days that's still very trail/all mountain oriented. It should be slack enough for anything except places which cater to lift service with strictly downhill runs, but people ride anything they bring so try it once then rent if it doesn't work for you. Even with a proper fitting you'll feel different than in the cockpit of your hardtail and it will be encouraging you to chew up trail when pointed down. I can't speak for climbing on any 29er, so I won't. Is having a rear shock too much/overkill for our trails? If you ask those who ride without one they will likely say 'yes'. Ask those with FS and we'll say 'maybe, but who cares?' There will be a weight penalty with FS but it isn't awful. A little background - I rode a fully rigid bike off and on for about 7 years and little of that was on trails. Two years ago, at 43 and very overweight, I bought a used FS bike because I wanted the (real or imaginary) advantage of being able to take on more technical terrain. It was confidence-inspiring if only for making me feel safer initially. Now I love the longer travel for the fun factor, as Raleighguy29 can attest to. It's not an XC racing machine but I did some DINO events last year and will mount up again on my "too much bike" to race DINO again this year. I will have to work harder at times on my puny 26" wheels and 6" of travel but I knew that before I ever laid down the cash. Have you ridden a FS bike on one of the trails around here? Obviously not a requirement but it could more readily ease your mind, if only to confirm that you like the feel of the suspension's interaction with the terrain. Currently bad timing with snow smoothing out the trails even further, but if you want to try another bike, let me know- mine just got back from its tune-up. People ride bikes of all varieties on the local trails because everyone has different preferences, regardless of the intended purpose of their machine. Unless you're looking at turning it into a 35+lb beast, that Yeti will never be anything but Too Much Fun! ~Yet another Dave
41
« on: February 23, 2015, 01:37:54 PM »
Thanks for posting up here with these details along with the event site. The named mandatory checkpoints definitely alter my team's intended route. Fun stuff!
42
« on: February 21, 2015, 10:48:45 AM »
The trails on the Midwest Trail Ride property are multi-use, as well.
Here's a good map of the trails that are open to bikes and horses:
Thank you- That's what I needed to hear. The FS map only shows Hickory Ridge and I have the NatGeo map. Just didn't want to plan a route through the horseman property and be surprised on race day.
43
« on: February 20, 2015, 02:58:04 PM »
I'm wondering when we can expect to receive details about the 2015 mandatory checkpoints. The 2014 content remains on the event site. I realize some aspects of the web component may not have transitioned fully from Sub9 to DINO, but maybe the veterans can confirm if the mandatory stops are usually posted by now.
With the addition of horse riders last year I see the horse trails labeled on the linked map on the DM event site. Should I presume those handful of Horse Trail #x segments are strictly for horses? Sorry, haven't ridden any of the area roads or trails down there yet to see actual signage.
I haven't decided if I am going to wish for a snowy DM race or 50 degrees and balmy (mud). It'll be fun regardless I'm sure.
~Yet another Dave
44
« on: February 18, 2015, 10:19:15 AM »
@allmountin - I agree about the 4 tabletops. Good building blocks, as long as they don't cone off any and force a detour on the line for almost 2 hours.
I had my rebound set slow so it wasn't ideal for some of the chatter the intermediate segments offered but it was bearable.
Good to know about the lockers, I saw they weren't a BYO lock operation but wasn't aware of the price. Thank goodness for pockets! I did leave a water bottle at one of the bike racks on the park course and found my way back to it every so often. I saw others left their pack at the head of the first jump line since they were repeating that stretch for a period.
I noticed new pricing options have opened up on the website for frequent riders. It's nice to see that for those who choose to visit there more often.
Interesting to note about the temp and number of riders you estimate seeing. Thanks for the feedback, it helps everyone.
45
« on: February 12, 2015, 04:17:58 PM »
@Nate - Good question. I couldn't keep off the DJ portions entirely because the tamer ones put a smile on my face but the majority of them were only targets of observation for me.
I think if I had remained on the green and blue portions with no DJ hits at all the entire 4 hours I would have been fairly content. Note- since it's one-way you can't double your experience going the other direction. It takes a few passes to learn which segment will get you to X feature on the blue lines and yes, overall you're essentially going in circles but the interior lines that wrap about the mammoth "columns" of rock help keep that off your mind until you jump back onto the green outer loop.
I think with some overlap in what one favors the park has a good amount of terrain for both camps but people are vastly different in their attitudes and expectations. I think if you let go of any preconceived notions and realize your first visit will tell all, you may be less apt to set yourself up for possible disappointment.
Could I find enough variety to keep me busy for 4 hours w/o the DJ bits? Yes- because I go with the intent to enjoy the heck out of what is offered. Could you find enough? I'm not sure.
I believe "boredom" is merely a chosen feeling, not a state of being, and I am never bored.
HTH
~Yet another Dave
|
|
Show Posts
