J
Jonesy
Guest
"Dan Volker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<YL%[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > Which ones were those?
> > >
> > > Canondales, Specialized, Diamond Back
> >
> > What models?
>
> Mostly X-country ( 3 inch travel models)
So, comparing all these different bikes, ones with completely
different design purposes, really doesn't give you much of a broad
base for discussing free-ride bikes. Got it.
But I like the lame-ass barbs you try and stick onto the ends - they
really make you look smart. LOL.
> > >Santa Cruz Blur, Intense Spyder.
> >
> > I didn't know these were long-travel free-ride style bikes. Hmmm.
>
> Most bikes I have ridden are 3 inch travel or less
So, you really don't have a broad base of comparison. I see.
> that you have sufficient bike action input on rides to become aware
> of this flex
There's motion in the rear of the bike. A bending moment that can be
felt on the trail, that disrupts the bikes handling.
> and how could you distinguish such a frame behvior from all
> the other possibilities which could cause a bike to ride or corner in
> specific ways---bad tires being one example
If two bikes have the same tires, then the tires should act the same,
given approximately identical loads and pressures. That one's out, as
I already explained.
> poorly set up shocks for a
> specific frame, as another
Since the TALAS R was designed for the Liquid, specifically, and since
the manual states exactly how to set it up for rider weight and
desired travel characteristics, this one is just an exercise in
straw-clutching. You have yet to explain how this effects the plane
of motion from side-to-side.
> I'm sure several other possibilities could be
> considered as well.
Indeed. Mostly, it seems that what we have here is one person, with a
broad background in twisty, challenging singletrack, demoing a bunch
of different free-ride bikes, vs. some flatlander know-it-all who
tested one or two different bikes, and now thinks he's some sort of
expert.
I can live with that comparison.
> And after you have shown repeatedly that you have almost
> no awareness of whether you are riding a rockshox or a Manitou
Bzzzt. I knew exactly what I was riding. Just because it wasn't the
very same model as what you rode makes very little difference. Just
because *you* claim some world of difference doesn't mean anything.
Hell, your claims are frequently and hilariously debunked here.
> It also seems you have forgotten that the Liquid has huge
> leverage in its rocker arm
Ooops, looks like you have a reading comprehension problem. LOL.
Talk about not being able to keep things straight...
> Mating a shock to this that can be perfectly adjusted to your weight
> and riding style--and "is" perfectly adjusted, might be a better first step
> in looking for problems.
The plane of motion that we are discussing has nothing to do with how
the shock is performing. It could be completely locked out, and there
would still be the same forces acting on the carbon stays and rocker
arms. (More or less - the point at which the tires are on the dirt in
the corner is where it moves laterally.)
> What have you said so far that would indicate that
> you had your rear shocks stet perfectly for you on the Liquid you rode?
They don't need to be set up "perfectly." They need to be set up
"close enough." If a bike doesn't operate well in "close enough",
then it's **** and you need to find a better bike. Funny, the
Specialized, Giant and Marin bikes worked just fine. Don't you find
it odd that one bike was so poorly set up that it acted like ****, but
the others were set up well enough to act great? Was that just purely
by chance? As in every other claim you make, you destroy your
crediblity by even suggesting it.
> And,
> how do you know that the Manitou 3 way SPV might just do a much better job
> of adjusting perfectly to your weight and riding style than the Rockshock?
The adjustable-travel shock is a Fox TALAS R. What were you saying
about not being able to keep stuff straight, again? LOL. (The fork
was Rock Sux.)
If it needs to be perfect to ride acceptably, that's a serious
indictment of the bike. Period.
[snip hilarious flailing]
Danny, I set up the shock, according to what Trek said in the manual
(it could have been the Fox manual - either way, it was for that
shock, and that bike.)
You're trying to say now that somehow, the SPV shock transforms this
shitty-ass flexy POS into a hardtail? Jeez - you accuse *me* of drug
use? LMAO.
> > Trek Liquid. That's the bike, right? Whether it's a 25 or a 30,
> > you're just being dumb (redundancy, I know, I know...)
>
> The big leverage in the rocker arm, exagerates the importance of the
> correctly mated shock system
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If the rocker arm transmits force from anywhere, it
should ONLY be in a vertical plane. The only difference, throughout
the entire range of travel, is that the lateral forces become largest
at the point where the rear hub is furthest toward the rear. In a
well-designed bike, there should be very, very little lateral movement
at any point in the travel, even if the shock was just a plain,
vanilla coil shock. It might be boingy, spongy, and ill-suited toward
your riding style, but the pivots, rockers shock and stays should not
flex laterally.
> On the Liquid 25 and 50, where the travel stays 5
> inches
If you had been reading along with the rest of the class, you would
have remembered that I fixed the travel at 5 inches, due to lack of
sufficient ride height in the 3 and 4 inch settings.
> > > Flexy, fiddly travel
> > > > > > adjust that wasn't worth anything - not confidence inspiring.
> > >
> > > Which does not exist on a 25. Check the website.
> >
> > Which makes exactly what difference in how flexy the bike is? You
> > still haven't manged to explain that...
>
> You have no idea that flex in the frame is occuring.
None of your hypotheses (except the tires) can be the cause, so we are
left with tires and frame. Since the tires are out (same tires on
Fuel 90, no apparent flex), that leaves the frame.
Hmmm, and lets see - Liquids have this funky seatstay design - the
stays are carbon. And are meant to flex. Gosh, these stays might not
only flex in one axis, but also another (they are tubular, after all.)
Naw, that can't be it - it's got to be some telescoping air-filled
concentric metal cylinders that are causing all this flex. Yeah,
sure.
> You can't look down and
> see the chain stays bending
Those aluminum stays better not be bending...
> this is just
> your guess about what is wrong with your riding experience. And it sounds
> like a pretty lazy guess.
LOL. More irony from someone who obviously knows not one damn thing
about anything he says.
> > Hmmm, maybe you don't know everything about how every LBS specs,
> > loans, test-rides, or prices their bikes, huh?
>
>
> Trek dealers are not supposed to be so incompetent that they can not
> assemble bikes properly.
Unless, of course, the bikes come with a certain component spec from
the factory. One ordered specifically, or maybe there was a mid-year
spec change, or...
Fact is, Danny, you have no idea WHY the bikes got specced this way,
and pretending it's incompetance means that you're just casting about
for some lifeline to save you ass.
Too bad you're not man enough to admit that you don't really know what
the answer is.
> If you call Trek, they will tell you what you saw
> is wrong. You need to find more competent bike shops.
Funny thing about that - they have told me that some bikes get
different forks because they have similar price points. I'm sure you
could call them and hear the same thing.
But you won't.
> > No ****. It was a 30. I know you think you're making a point, so I'm
> > gonna leave it at "yeah, the 25 and 30 are completely different bikes
> > - so different they feel like they were made by different
> > manufacturers."
> >
> > LMAO.
>
> The 25 and 50 are part of a lineup where each is supposed to have full time
> plush ( 5 inch potential travel), with SPV to prevent use of the full 5
> inches when its not needed.
Like when you're pedalling? Ooops, except I wasn't pedalling, I was
going down the hill. The shocks are supposed to act completely
differently in that mode? Explain that, Dan. You keep speaking in
general, marketing, terms. Be specific and technical, so that
everyone will know that you know EXACTLY what you are talking about.
> The 10 and 30 are a whole different
> philosophy----changeable travel.
And this makes the same bike so drastically different on the downhill
(using the same travel setting as the SPV-equipped frame) that they
act like totally different bikes? Be detailed in your technical
description.
> You can say the 25 is similar to the 50.
> You can say the 10 is similar to the 30. That's it.
And they all use the very same frame. Ooops, different paint. Ah-HA
- it's the *paint* that makes all the difference! Black paint is
flexier! No wonder red bikes are faster!
> As it is, you are
> deserving the title of the "worst Reviewer" of bikes or parts I have ever
> heard of.
Since you are wrong so often, this is actually quite a compliment.
Thank you.
> > Exactly what has this to do with the internals filtering low-frequency
> > inputs? What's that, you say? Nothing? Yup, you're right. When
> > you're not pedalling, the bikes have *essentially* the same behavior,
> > assuming the shock is set up correctly.
>
>
> We can't begin to assume the shock was set up correctly.
If it was set up according to the manual, then it was set up about as
correctly as it can be without extensive "dialling-in." But it
shouldn't need to be perfect to ride well. It should have a decent
range of "good enough." Just like the Giant, Marin and Specialized.
All set up to factory-recommended specs. No lateral flex in these
bikes. (Not entirely true, but one really has to be looking for it to
tell.)
As I said before, if it needs to be set up perfectly to ride
acceptably, then the bike is ****.
> Everything you have
> said
[snip]
Considering the source of this, Dan, you really do make yourself look
like a total tool. Works for me.
> > So, one of these shocks, the one that keeps the bike from bobbing when
> > pedalling, somehow does a better job of doing something other than
> > that than the shock that wasn't designed to keep the bike from bobbing
> > when pedalling?
>
> A bike with a short rocker arm will have less leverage
Both bikes have the same rocker arm length. And both bikes had the
same travel (5 inches.)
Find another theory - your flailing is amusing.
> > You're no mechanical genious, that's for damn sure.
>
> I think I'd have to be an "Educational Genius" to explain things to you
> properly for your awareness disability ;-)
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > Which ones were those?
> > >
> > > Canondales, Specialized, Diamond Back
> >
> > What models?
>
> Mostly X-country ( 3 inch travel models)
So, comparing all these different bikes, ones with completely
different design purposes, really doesn't give you much of a broad
base for discussing free-ride bikes. Got it.
But I like the lame-ass barbs you try and stick onto the ends - they
really make you look smart. LOL.
> > >Santa Cruz Blur, Intense Spyder.
> >
> > I didn't know these were long-travel free-ride style bikes. Hmmm.
>
> Most bikes I have ridden are 3 inch travel or less
So, you really don't have a broad base of comparison. I see.
> that you have sufficient bike action input on rides to become aware
> of this flex
There's motion in the rear of the bike. A bending moment that can be
felt on the trail, that disrupts the bikes handling.
> and how could you distinguish such a frame behvior from all
> the other possibilities which could cause a bike to ride or corner in
> specific ways---bad tires being one example
If two bikes have the same tires, then the tires should act the same,
given approximately identical loads and pressures. That one's out, as
I already explained.
> poorly set up shocks for a
> specific frame, as another
Since the TALAS R was designed for the Liquid, specifically, and since
the manual states exactly how to set it up for rider weight and
desired travel characteristics, this one is just an exercise in
straw-clutching. You have yet to explain how this effects the plane
of motion from side-to-side.
> I'm sure several other possibilities could be
> considered as well.
Indeed. Mostly, it seems that what we have here is one person, with a
broad background in twisty, challenging singletrack, demoing a bunch
of different free-ride bikes, vs. some flatlander know-it-all who
tested one or two different bikes, and now thinks he's some sort of
expert.
I can live with that comparison.
> And after you have shown repeatedly that you have almost
> no awareness of whether you are riding a rockshox or a Manitou
Bzzzt. I knew exactly what I was riding. Just because it wasn't the
very same model as what you rode makes very little difference. Just
because *you* claim some world of difference doesn't mean anything.
Hell, your claims are frequently and hilariously debunked here.
> It also seems you have forgotten that the Liquid has huge
> leverage in its rocker arm
Ooops, looks like you have a reading comprehension problem. LOL.
Talk about not being able to keep things straight...
> Mating a shock to this that can be perfectly adjusted to your weight
> and riding style--and "is" perfectly adjusted, might be a better first step
> in looking for problems.
The plane of motion that we are discussing has nothing to do with how
the shock is performing. It could be completely locked out, and there
would still be the same forces acting on the carbon stays and rocker
arms. (More or less - the point at which the tires are on the dirt in
the corner is where it moves laterally.)
> What have you said so far that would indicate that
> you had your rear shocks stet perfectly for you on the Liquid you rode?
They don't need to be set up "perfectly." They need to be set up
"close enough." If a bike doesn't operate well in "close enough",
then it's **** and you need to find a better bike. Funny, the
Specialized, Giant and Marin bikes worked just fine. Don't you find
it odd that one bike was so poorly set up that it acted like ****, but
the others were set up well enough to act great? Was that just purely
by chance? As in every other claim you make, you destroy your
crediblity by even suggesting it.
> And,
> how do you know that the Manitou 3 way SPV might just do a much better job
> of adjusting perfectly to your weight and riding style than the Rockshock?
The adjustable-travel shock is a Fox TALAS R. What were you saying
about not being able to keep stuff straight, again? LOL. (The fork
was Rock Sux.)
If it needs to be perfect to ride acceptably, that's a serious
indictment of the bike. Period.
[snip hilarious flailing]
Danny, I set up the shock, according to what Trek said in the manual
(it could have been the Fox manual - either way, it was for that
shock, and that bike.)
You're trying to say now that somehow, the SPV shock transforms this
shitty-ass flexy POS into a hardtail? Jeez - you accuse *me* of drug
use? LMAO.
> > Trek Liquid. That's the bike, right? Whether it's a 25 or a 30,
> > you're just being dumb (redundancy, I know, I know...)
>
> The big leverage in the rocker arm, exagerates the importance of the
> correctly mated shock system
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If the rocker arm transmits force from anywhere, it
should ONLY be in a vertical plane. The only difference, throughout
the entire range of travel, is that the lateral forces become largest
at the point where the rear hub is furthest toward the rear. In a
well-designed bike, there should be very, very little lateral movement
at any point in the travel, even if the shock was just a plain,
vanilla coil shock. It might be boingy, spongy, and ill-suited toward
your riding style, but the pivots, rockers shock and stays should not
flex laterally.
> On the Liquid 25 and 50, where the travel stays 5
> inches
If you had been reading along with the rest of the class, you would
have remembered that I fixed the travel at 5 inches, due to lack of
sufficient ride height in the 3 and 4 inch settings.
> > > Flexy, fiddly travel
> > > > > > adjust that wasn't worth anything - not confidence inspiring.
> > >
> > > Which does not exist on a 25. Check the website.
> >
> > Which makes exactly what difference in how flexy the bike is? You
> > still haven't manged to explain that...
>
> You have no idea that flex in the frame is occuring.
None of your hypotheses (except the tires) can be the cause, so we are
left with tires and frame. Since the tires are out (same tires on
Fuel 90, no apparent flex), that leaves the frame.
Hmmm, and lets see - Liquids have this funky seatstay design - the
stays are carbon. And are meant to flex. Gosh, these stays might not
only flex in one axis, but also another (they are tubular, after all.)
Naw, that can't be it - it's got to be some telescoping air-filled
concentric metal cylinders that are causing all this flex. Yeah,
sure.
> You can't look down and
> see the chain stays bending
Those aluminum stays better not be bending...
> this is just
> your guess about what is wrong with your riding experience. And it sounds
> like a pretty lazy guess.
LOL. More irony from someone who obviously knows not one damn thing
about anything he says.
> > Hmmm, maybe you don't know everything about how every LBS specs,
> > loans, test-rides, or prices their bikes, huh?
>
>
> Trek dealers are not supposed to be so incompetent that they can not
> assemble bikes properly.
Unless, of course, the bikes come with a certain component spec from
the factory. One ordered specifically, or maybe there was a mid-year
spec change, or...
Fact is, Danny, you have no idea WHY the bikes got specced this way,
and pretending it's incompetance means that you're just casting about
for some lifeline to save you ass.
Too bad you're not man enough to admit that you don't really know what
the answer is.
> If you call Trek, they will tell you what you saw
> is wrong. You need to find more competent bike shops.
Funny thing about that - they have told me that some bikes get
different forks because they have similar price points. I'm sure you
could call them and hear the same thing.
But you won't.
> > No ****. It was a 30. I know you think you're making a point, so I'm
> > gonna leave it at "yeah, the 25 and 30 are completely different bikes
> > - so different they feel like they were made by different
> > manufacturers."
> >
> > LMAO.
>
> The 25 and 50 are part of a lineup where each is supposed to have full time
> plush ( 5 inch potential travel), with SPV to prevent use of the full 5
> inches when its not needed.
Like when you're pedalling? Ooops, except I wasn't pedalling, I was
going down the hill. The shocks are supposed to act completely
differently in that mode? Explain that, Dan. You keep speaking in
general, marketing, terms. Be specific and technical, so that
everyone will know that you know EXACTLY what you are talking about.
> The 10 and 30 are a whole different
> philosophy----changeable travel.
And this makes the same bike so drastically different on the downhill
(using the same travel setting as the SPV-equipped frame) that they
act like totally different bikes? Be detailed in your technical
description.
> You can say the 25 is similar to the 50.
> You can say the 10 is similar to the 30. That's it.
And they all use the very same frame. Ooops, different paint. Ah-HA
- it's the *paint* that makes all the difference! Black paint is
flexier! No wonder red bikes are faster!
> As it is, you are
> deserving the title of the "worst Reviewer" of bikes or parts I have ever
> heard of.
Since you are wrong so often, this is actually quite a compliment.
Thank you.
> > Exactly what has this to do with the internals filtering low-frequency
> > inputs? What's that, you say? Nothing? Yup, you're right. When
> > you're not pedalling, the bikes have *essentially* the same behavior,
> > assuming the shock is set up correctly.
>
>
> We can't begin to assume the shock was set up correctly.
If it was set up according to the manual, then it was set up about as
correctly as it can be without extensive "dialling-in." But it
shouldn't need to be perfect to ride well. It should have a decent
range of "good enough." Just like the Giant, Marin and Specialized.
All set up to factory-recommended specs. No lateral flex in these
bikes. (Not entirely true, but one really has to be looking for it to
tell.)
As I said before, if it needs to be set up perfectly to ride
acceptably, then the bike is ****.
> Everything you have
> said
[snip]
Considering the source of this, Dan, you really do make yourself look
like a total tool. Works for me.
> > So, one of these shocks, the one that keeps the bike from bobbing when
> > pedalling, somehow does a better job of doing something other than
> > that than the shock that wasn't designed to keep the bike from bobbing
> > when pedalling?
>
> A bike with a short rocker arm will have less leverage
Both bikes have the same rocker arm length. And both bikes had the
same travel (5 inches.)
Find another theory - your flailing is amusing.
> > You're no mechanical genious, that's for damn sure.
>
> I think I'd have to be an "Educational Genius" to explain things to you
> properly for your awareness disability ;-)
