Check it out: Boulder High is having a parking problem.
Far be it from me to wax grumpy... but I will anyway. I'm not even sure 16 year olds should be allowed to drive - and the whole idea of the high school spending money on expanding their parking, instead of, say, paying teachers or buying supplies is ludicrous.
Raise the fee for a parking pass to $1000 a semester. Or more. Keep raising it until there's room in the lot again. Tow and impound cars parked illegally. Boom. Problem solved.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Track Day!
Yes, I went and rode a track bike. On the track. It was... interesting. Super, super fun for a couple of laps, then *really* boring for most of the rest of the time. I can see how you need to have some training goals or drills to work on to make it fun. Unfortunately, there are no pictures of your humble narrator, so you'll have to content yourselves with Fuentes' ugly mug, plus our attempt at a paceline. RC leads it out.
I have to say that I was unbelieveably sore (partially from the fact that the cheapie rental bikes had slipping seatposts, partly because I'm not used to fixed gears, and partly because it's *freaking hard*) the next day, so I actually might consider doing it again. It would be great training for next year's short track races, I think.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Thoughts on hydroformed aluminum tubes
No, I'm not planning to build any aluminum bikes. Sorry. For some context on how I came to write this, check out this MTBR thread.
First, a bit of context: the variety of good quality mountain bikes (both mass produced and custom) available now is astounding. There are an awful lot of good bikes out there both with and without hydroformed tubes.
But putting this in the context of global trade and mass manufacturing in general over the last decade or so, my BS detector goes off quickly when I hear crazy engineering claims about every new technology, *especially* when that technology happens to make it easier or cheaper to mass produce whatever product. Does that mean the technology is bad? Of course not! Cheaper/easier are good things, as long as you're not sacrificing quality (let's not get into whether or not buying everything we own from China is a good idea for now, since that kind of thread just devolves into name-calling in a hurry).
WRT hydroformed tubes specifically, I tend to see them on bikes where I *don't* see much effort made to really tune/engineer the different stock sizes for different riders (ie, same diameter tubes on every size from XS to XL, identical chainstay lengths and BB heights on every size, etc, etc). This generally leads me to believe that manufacturing costs are the driving force behind most of this kind of innovation, not improvements in riding characteristics.
I could of course be wrong. But Occam's Razor says that the best explanation here is just keeping costs down. Of course, that makes pretty crappy marketing copy ("just as good as last year, but 20% cheaper for us to make!"), so if you can make some tweaks to make the frame do a tiny bit better on a test rig, you're a lot better off using that as a selling point, even if the end consumer will never be able to tell.
So I'm not saying hydroformed tubes are bad. I'm just saying they're probably more beneficial to the manufacturer's bottom line than the rider's enjoyment. Just IMO, as always.
First, a bit of context: the variety of good quality mountain bikes (both mass produced and custom) available now is astounding. There are an awful lot of good bikes out there both with and without hydroformed tubes.
But putting this in the context of global trade and mass manufacturing in general over the last decade or so, my BS detector goes off quickly when I hear crazy engineering claims about every new technology, *especially* when that technology happens to make it easier or cheaper to mass produce whatever product. Does that mean the technology is bad? Of course not! Cheaper/easier are good things, as long as you're not sacrificing quality (let's not get into whether or not buying everything we own from China is a good idea for now, since that kind of thread just devolves into name-calling in a hurry).
WRT hydroformed tubes specifically, I tend to see them on bikes where I *don't* see much effort made to really tune/engineer the different stock sizes for different riders (ie, same diameter tubes on every size from XS to XL, identical chainstay lengths and BB heights on every size, etc, etc). This generally leads me to believe that manufacturing costs are the driving force behind most of this kind of innovation, not improvements in riding characteristics.
I could of course be wrong. But Occam's Razor says that the best explanation here is just keeping costs down. Of course, that makes pretty crappy marketing copy ("just as good as last year, but 20% cheaper for us to make!"), so if you can make some tweaks to make the frame do a tiny bit better on a test rig, you're a lot better off using that as a selling point, even if the end consumer will never be able to tell.
So I'm not saying hydroformed tubes are bad. I'm just saying they're probably more beneficial to the manufacturer's bottom line than the rider's enjoyment. Just IMO, as always.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Few shots of Tison's goofy bike
29" front/rear or 29" rear/fat tire 26" front, baby!
Tison writes: "Hi Walt. This is the best bike I have ever ridden! I especially like the fork."
Not too shabby, especially since this was built to replace a high-end custom frame, not just some cheap junk bike. Getting emails like that always make my day.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Overexposed
Sheesh, Eszter is getting to be a one-name celebrity like Cher. It's a good thing I kick her off the team so regularly to keep her modest.Also, thanks to Dave G for the photos. Here's his new 26" (read that wheel size part as if my voice were dripping with venomous disdain) singlespeed. By the way, that's a frakking huge tree, dude!
Sunday, November 01, 2009
For no good reason at all
...here's a picture of Chris during this year's CB Classic. Yes, he rides a lot of stuff on his singlespeed that most folks walk.
Sorry about the lack of pictures on the blog lately. None of my recent build projects has really been that unusual, and I'm working pretty slowly due to being sick all the freakin time. I promise to try to attempt to do better.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thoughts on full suspension 29ers
Nowork pointed me to this article over at 29inches, which I thought was pretty interesting, and I (as the personal owner at various times of both 4, 5, and 7" travel 29ers) tend to generally agree with the conclusion - that the 4" 29er is the "all around XC" bike for most folks.
I thought I'd offer a bit of the designers perspective on why I think that longer travel 29ers will remain a niche product. There are a bunch, really, from 2 angles - fitting the rider, and fitting the rear wheel.
The rider is the easiest part to start with, though both problems interact to a significant extent. When we add travel to a 29" full suspension bike, we start running into some standover problems.
Now remember, I'm on the record as saying I don't think standover is all that important, as long as you can comfortably get on and off the bike. And it's easy to build a hardtail 29er with standover well under 28" or so (without even resorting to any weird trickery), which means that most non-tiny folks with shoes on can ride them pretty comfortably. The dualy is a different story than the hardtail, of course - we'll be using some sag in both the front and rear suspensions when the rider is onboard, so to get the BB height where I want it, the whole bike gets taller. A 3" dualy, all things being equal, is going to have about 3/4" less standover than a suspension corrected hardtail. And every inch of travel we add will basically add another inch to the standover height. So as you go up, you eliminate folks who can comfortably mount/dismount.
Now consider, also, that as we add travel (at least on most single pivot frames) we've got to make room for the rear wheel to track up (as the suspension compresses) and towards the seat tube (this problem is mitigated to a very small extent if you've got a slightly rearward wheel path, but not that much - the seat tube is still in the 73ish degree range, so you'd need a *really* rearward axle path to keep the tire away from it entirely). And of course, you've got to make sure you can run a front derailleur, and all the associated cable clamps and stops and such need to clear the rear tire as well.
That wouldn't be a problem, except that the rear ends of 29ers are already on the long side (an average 29er hardtail is probably in the 445-450mm range for effective chainstay length). As we add travel, we have to either move the seat tube out of the way, or lengthen the stays to keep everything from smashing together - so looking at some of the popular bikes out there, chainstay lengths are in the 450-470mm range, with a few even longer. Those are mostly 4" bikes. As we add travel, we have to do more and more futzing to keep everything working right, or add more length to the chainstays.
Now there's nothing wrong with long chainstays for many people. Lots of people whine and moan about not being able to "manual" easily, for example, because 29ers have chainstays that are too long. Without getting too far into this debate (it would end up being a rant about how chainstay length should be custom for every rider and all sorts of lengths can be "right" depending on terrain and preference), while most of these people don't even know what an actual manual is (let alone actually being able to ride one), they do have a point, to an extent. If you're 5'10" tall and have 470mm chainstays, getting the front end up is, all things being equal, harder than if you had 445mm ones. The more travel, the harder it becomes to make chainstays short, meaning that you end up with a bike that works well for certain riders but really poorly for others. Not so good.
But at 4" travel, most of this can be pretty easily overcome. A 4" travel 29er (which is what I ride on many days) can handle most reasonable XC riding, and even a bit of chairlift-served silliness as long as you don't go too crazy. I think that the author is right - we'll see 4" settle in as sort of the standard for 29ers. What surprises me is that 3" bikes are virtually nonexistent - I can make a great 3" travel race 29er, but very seldom have anyone interested, whereas 4" travel 26" bikes are still quite common.
That was a pretty disjointed post, I guess, but it's Sunday and it's 65 degrees out, so I'm going for a (wet, road) ride and I don't have the time or inclination to re-edit it. So that's what you get.
I thought I'd offer a bit of the designers perspective on why I think that longer travel 29ers will remain a niche product. There are a bunch, really, from 2 angles - fitting the rider, and fitting the rear wheel.
The rider is the easiest part to start with, though both problems interact to a significant extent. When we add travel to a 29" full suspension bike, we start running into some standover problems.
Now remember, I'm on the record as saying I don't think standover is all that important, as long as you can comfortably get on and off the bike. And it's easy to build a hardtail 29er with standover well under 28" or so (without even resorting to any weird trickery), which means that most non-tiny folks with shoes on can ride them pretty comfortably. The dualy is a different story than the hardtail, of course - we'll be using some sag in both the front and rear suspensions when the rider is onboard, so to get the BB height where I want it, the whole bike gets taller. A 3" dualy, all things being equal, is going to have about 3/4" less standover than a suspension corrected hardtail. And every inch of travel we add will basically add another inch to the standover height. So as you go up, you eliminate folks who can comfortably mount/dismount.
Now consider, also, that as we add travel (at least on most single pivot frames) we've got to make room for the rear wheel to track up (as the suspension compresses) and towards the seat tube (this problem is mitigated to a very small extent if you've got a slightly rearward wheel path, but not that much - the seat tube is still in the 73ish degree range, so you'd need a *really* rearward axle path to keep the tire away from it entirely). And of course, you've got to make sure you can run a front derailleur, and all the associated cable clamps and stops and such need to clear the rear tire as well.
That wouldn't be a problem, except that the rear ends of 29ers are already on the long side (an average 29er hardtail is probably in the 445-450mm range for effective chainstay length). As we add travel, we have to either move the seat tube out of the way, or lengthen the stays to keep everything from smashing together - so looking at some of the popular bikes out there, chainstay lengths are in the 450-470mm range, with a few even longer. Those are mostly 4" bikes. As we add travel, we have to do more and more futzing to keep everything working right, or add more length to the chainstays.
Now there's nothing wrong with long chainstays for many people. Lots of people whine and moan about not being able to "manual" easily, for example, because 29ers have chainstays that are too long. Without getting too far into this debate (it would end up being a rant about how chainstay length should be custom for every rider and all sorts of lengths can be "right" depending on terrain and preference), while most of these people don't even know what an actual manual is (let alone actually being able to ride one), they do have a point, to an extent. If you're 5'10" tall and have 470mm chainstays, getting the front end up is, all things being equal, harder than if you had 445mm ones. The more travel, the harder it becomes to make chainstays short, meaning that you end up with a bike that works well for certain riders but really poorly for others. Not so good.
But at 4" travel, most of this can be pretty easily overcome. A 4" travel 29er (which is what I ride on many days) can handle most reasonable XC riding, and even a bit of chairlift-served silliness as long as you don't go too crazy. I think that the author is right - we'll see 4" settle in as sort of the standard for 29ers. What surprises me is that 3" bikes are virtually nonexistent - I can make a great 3" travel race 29er, but very seldom have anyone interested, whereas 4" travel 26" bikes are still quite common.
That was a pretty disjointed post, I guess, but it's Sunday and it's 65 degrees out, so I'm going for a (wet, road) ride and I don't have the time or inclination to re-edit it. So that's what you get.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Illness strikes again
I'm assuming I caught something from one of my 500 closest costumed friends, when we were all packed into the Spot for the bouldering comp on Saturday. Lovely.
In any case, there's a fresh foot of snow, and I'm sick. You know what that means - nothing is going to get done until I'm at least a little bit recovered, or the temperature gets up to a point where I feel like I can work in the shop without making myself sicker. The heaters can get it up to about 20 degrees above the ambient temp, but today that's not enough.
My goal is to do some design work and perhaps tinker with the website today, so theoretically, I'll be "working", but it's likely that no metal will get cut up or welded together. You've been warned.
In any case, there's a fresh foot of snow, and I'm sick. You know what that means - nothing is going to get done until I'm at least a little bit recovered, or the temperature gets up to a point where I feel like I can work in the shop without making myself sicker. The heaters can get it up to about 20 degrees above the ambient temp, but today that's not enough.
My goal is to do some design work and perhaps tinker with the website today, so theoretically, I'll be "working", but it's likely that no metal will get cut up or welded together. You've been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
