Love the trail your on :wink:

I’ve not tried it mind…. but I’ve heard any shifter sram or Shimano can be used.

M4’s feel little better than X2’s, and are I believe not worth the cost or the weight. V2’s on the other hand are a quantum leap; epic brakes.

Ski’s. You could take the bike round some of the trails in amongst the trees but there will be a heck of a lot of walking involved.

Can’t speak for Banchory but in most of Aberdeenshire it’s ski’s fo-sho!

As above… the RS recommendations for my Reba’s are way off. I run much less pressure than is suggested on the side.

Nice write up. Whats the bottom bracket height difference between the Cham and the Soul? I suspect the Soul is lower which might explain some of what your feeling.

GW… For shuttling use a QR is what I was trying to say… not don’t drop the saddle :roll:

I wouldn’t say I want a low BB. I just don’t want a stupid high one 8O

20mm higher is noticeable :roll:

I can’t see the point for shuttling at Inners ( :roll: ) or riding at Glentress where you know whats coming. For the big mountain rides I do where it’s 2 hours up and then half an hour down I can’t see the point really, but for my local forest where I do adjust the height at least 4 times in a two hour ride I can see the benefit.
For terrain you don’t know I can see it being a handy tool for surprises and making the most of what is there without having to stop… and perhaps this is the real benefit?

Yes – for my local ride I could leave the seat at max and mince round, or I could keep it down all the way for the benefits on the gnar; but risk hurting my knees. Or drop it an inch and get neither the best or the worst of the above options… and why I tend to break saddles (probably :P ). I’ve never managed a clean loop of the forest with no dabs/stops… perhaps one of these will make it possible?

+1

Sticking long forks on bikes slackens the headtube angle and gives you more suspension which can make a bike feel better in certain conditions, but it also raises the bottom bracket, which takes away some of the benefits (IMHO). It also reduces the seat angle which is another -ve in my opinion, especially for technical climbing.

Having recently ridden my Whyte 19 against a Cotic Soda I instantly felt the benefit of the lower bb on the Cotic (I felt the difference and measured after). Although that was not the only difference between the two it was one I felt had a big influence – you ride on the Whyte and in the Cotic, as you said above.

Downside as you mention is increased pedal strike – which up to a point I would be happy to live with. For smoother trails the lower bottom bracket is an outrite win as it carves better (skiing terminology – but I’m people sure will understand what I mean and not hang me for it :wink: ). For really rocky rooty terrain I can see how a higher bottom bracket will have it’s benefits – although it will make the bike more nervous (as it does on my Whyte).

I love the idea, but I’ve broken two saddles this year, therefore waiting for a reliable version. I can live with stopping to mess with my qr because I am always so far out front of groups, or riding on my own… in which case it doesn’t’ matter a fig anyway.

When I find one I think is me proof I will be in like flynn.

A few thoughts.

My Balfa has a 66deg head angle and 70deg seat angle with 120mm forks. I’d like the seat angle a little steeper as techy steep climbing is a nose of the saddle tricky affair.

My Whyte 19 has 67deg head angle and 71deg seat angle with 120mm forks. Climbs and rides okay but the high bottom bracket makes it unstable and a bit of a handfull in the nadgery fun stuff… but it does the miles better than the Balfa

I demo’d a Cotic Soda – 68 head angle and 70deg seat angle with 120mm forks. Bottom bracket was lower than the Whyte and the same as the Balfa, which made it feel great much of the time, but it didn’t have the stability of the Balfa and Whyte when really pushed into the gnar… the bike had a tendency to “stall” when hitting things and felt like it didn’t want to roll over them as effectively as the other two bikes. It also didn’t recover as well from jumps and drops as if when being at full compresion I felt pitched over the front. Obviously this could be set up and other issues but I think the head angle had a lot to do with it. I like the feel of the head angle on the Whyte and Balfa as they suit my rather “blunt” and “bludgeoning” style of riding.

On all the above bikes I ended up running the saddle forward on the rails to make the bikes climb better – probably making the seat angle more like 72/73 deg. None of the above are perfect for what I want… if I had the cash I would get something made or at least keep trying some other frames. It’s hard enough to keep up with the bits I break and wear out without buying lots of things to try :roll:

Brant… I’ve tried an 18 Ragley but it was too big and simply felt wrong for me. I would love to try a 16 or the 17 when they come out… perhaps when I decide I’ve had enough of the Whyte (or I break it again).

My full suss bike has a 65 head angle and 72 seat angle (saddle forward again) – it really suits my style of riding just fine.

Side note – I don’t understand how people can use “sag” to modify the geometry for a longer fork. I tried it… and when I used a lot of sag I’d be bottoming the fork out all the time and eventually breaking it… but it also gave little benefit on the steep climbs as the fork is unweighted and hence at max extension anyway… so no point. Travel adjust forks also don’t work for me as I always end up forgetting to change the travel :twisted:

Balfa Minuteman – 2002 slack head angled beefy hardtail. 66deg with 120mm forks! Longer fork than that and the seat angle got overly slack for climbing (70deg). The Balfa is a hooning weapon and hugely capable all around apart from the dinky seat tube and huge seatpost… also the problem was the weight, as things broke I built it heavier until 35lbs was just stoopid. So I bought a Whyte 19 which has very similar geometry… on paper… but the sky high bottom bracket makes it much more twitchy.

I’m still looking for something between the two – so a slack headangle, steep seat angle and low bottom bracket are high on the wish list!

I was given a Glenfiddich three small bottle sample pack recently.12, 15 and 18, and very good it was too. Not as good as visiting the distillary and doing the tour…. where you get to sample the same three now. The sample notes from the tour were brilliant and the tour was fun for my 3 & 5 year olds. The difference between the three whisky ages is huge.

Benromach organic mentioned by cougar is nice, tastes very much like a bourbon, a good oddity.

Fox F120 qr vs Reba maxle vs old bomber = F-all unless your forks are trollied or your some kind of bike god. I dislike qr because they come lose, not because they are less stiff that you can feel on the trail, marketing 101.

Lyrik is a beefy fork, nothing short of similar or 36mm will compare, imho.

Ice in Whisky… are you a septic?

Burn him!

F-all is the difference from your mx vs most qr forks you will feel. Next.

If your not sure if you like whisky… I recommend Glenfiddich 15 year old Solera reserve… end of discussion ;)

Recently enjoyed a Glenfiddich 18. A very special wee dram. I also enjoy some obscure finishes from my local pusher, burgundy or port finish work very well… I’ve yet to have a bad one. Ask an expert or check out the Loch Fine Whisky website, hours of happy hunting.

Pick your days. Hellfests are for idiots. If conditions up high are poor stay low and have fun, be prepared to change your plans and think about escape routes and not pushing for that final peak or valley.

Local cheese ftw. A little local knowledge is always helpful.

A bolt is a bolt and they do break sometimes, Nicolai have explained which type to use now… although mate Pablo did bend an FR linkage plate… but did the “wrong” bolt snappage cause the plate bendage?

Sorry for the hijacking Jedi.

If it can be broken I am the man to do it…

Hopefully nothing wrong with the hammerschmidt other than cables. Hope have been great about the snappage, I’d rather work with a company through a problem than switch.

Hi chainline. Yes, axle snappage is mostly a Hope with maxle lite thing but it does go deeper, if you dig a bit you can hear of ck and other hub problems.

Not sure why my hs has been misbehaving, possibly cable issues with -7 degc? Not found the problem yet but its not right.

Try and swing a leg over a Nicolai Helius AM.

I’m loving mine. Doing all the stuff I used to do on the 43lb Nucleon but it at only 33lbs it’s worth taking out for more XC jaunts (which the Nukey never was). Apart from the well worn issue of 12mm rear hubs axle snappage and troublesome air shocks I’ve had no problems with it yet (although the Hammerschmidt is worrying me and two rear mechs in 6 months is painfull).
If looking SH try to find a Helius FR as they are also brilliant if from the last few years – the older ones are bit weird geometry wise.

Very enjoyable – thanks.

Been using it for fifteen years, not the same bit obviously, it works and its lite.

My experience of XC frames being put to hard duty is from a few years ago when they were the only frames we could get. Most failures were around the bottom bracket, headtube, or dropouts.

These are the places to watch imho… and for the Boardmans keep a close eye on the headtube :wink:

I’ve posted on this very subject before… repeat…

I can now comment on this since I’ve tried both. I own a Whyte 19 Steel and have test ridden a Cotic Soda; both in Medium frame sizes with 120mm forks.

The big difference is that with the Cotic you sit “in” the bike and with the Whyte you sit “on” it – what seem on the surface to be very similar bikes do have quite different personalities.

There is a big difference between the bottom bracket height of the two with the Cotic having the lower by almost 20mm, which explains I think why I feel perched on the Whyte but ride in the Cotic. This gives the Cotic more stability and speed with a more racey feel to it, the Whyte however does not feel nervous which is usually what I find a high BB gives you. The reason for this is I believe the slacker head angle on the Whyte (67deg vs 69deg) which gives it great stability and stops it “stalling” when slammed into trail features, a trait I found occasionally with the Cotic.

Seat angle (71deg) and chainstay lenght between the two was nearly identical (Whyte dropouts in the middle) so for climbing they are very similar, although for techy work the Cotic did ding a pedal more frequently due to the lower bottom bracket (natch), but it also felt a little more planted than the Whyte.

For the rutted super sketchy gnar terrain I like they both performed well with the saddle dropped, but with different traits. The Cotic was harder to hold the line with and the front wanted to tuck under sending the back over, or that’s how it felt, like I had to get further back behind the saddle to keep control. I also had to take care with the pedals to prevent banging them, but it was all certainly fun and much better than old skool XC geometry.
The Whyte feels more sketchy dropping in but once in the flow the bike feels planted and to me more manoeuvrable as I didn’t feel the need to be so far over the back. Neither of them is a plower like my big bike and they both needed plenty of input to keep them upright and going in the correct direction. When coming out of the gnar the Whyte was quicker to recover it’s composure and sprint to the next obstacle like a mini BMX. For berms and chucking into fast corners the Cotic felt quicker as long as the trails were smooth; I found the Cotic tended to get knocked off line easier and suffered the “stalling” I mentioned earlier when the trails were not smooth or there was deep mud.

Note – I’m used to the Whyte and the Cotic was new to me so preferences will vary but I can say with certainty that both of these bikes are a hoot and either is great. Both are way better in the gnar and trails were I ride than traditional XC bikes.

I’d love to try something that steals what I see as the best of both bikes: Drop the bottom bracket height on the Whyte a little or kick out the head angle a couple of degrees on the Cotic.

Material issues – The Cotic which was Ti felt a little punchier than the steel Whyte under sprinting, but both were lovely and had the springy feel I like. The Cotic was the lighter bike but it was not really noticeable on the trails due to the hefty coating of mud acquired by both bikes.

I’ll be sticking with my Whyte for the moment but if I had a Cotic I would be sticking with it too – different but equally brilliant fun. Now… what else can I try

A longer fork than 120mm on either would damage the techy climbing ability in my opinion… but the Cotic could get away with it because of the lower bottom bracket, raising the Whyte’s already high BB is asking for a very unstable bike… again, in my opinion… but yours may vary.

PS – ability to singlespeed the Whyte is nice as is playing with the chainstay lengths. Long is good in the summer for dry trails and speed, shorter in the winter for muddy grip and feel. I ended up racing mine at the euro singlespeed champs when my other bike died on the social ride.

They are like helium filled ballons, they are floating around the roof of the warehouse and the people who have to get them into boxes are trying to get them down with long poles and bits of rope.

I’ve become quite an expert at changing the axles since converting mine to 12mm. I’ve snapped/bent three axles in 6 months.

Brilliant.

Gravity Lite 60mm x 1.5″ stem is pretty and mine weighs only 175g.

Got mine for £17 off ebay :lol:

Truvativ Holzfeller was meant to be light but the 40mm one I have was over 200g and finish is a bit patchy.

If I hadn’t got the Gravity I was looking at a Syncros.

Looks good (apart from the stem… natch).

A little plumbers PTFE tape on the threads.

I’ll probably be in for a sledge or two Chris…

This guy on the way up to Cairngorm has the most mental range of sledges I have ever seen http://www.sledges.co.uk/

He’s quite a laugh as well – the shop does a fine full breakfast in the old-skool-stylie which is great when your camping in the pissing rain at Rothiemurchus.

Pro 2 EVO hub makes it like the Pro 3 hub as used in the SP wheels… which is better(er). Bigger axle hence stronger… Pro 2 hubs have a known axle weakness especially when used with the 12mm Maxle set up (but you will need to ride hard to find the weakness).

I love the support I get from Hope when I have problems, especially when I compare that with the 3 month wait I once had for Mavic Crossmax spokes. It’s kind of hard for me to contemplate fancy wheelsets again but the Haven and DT wheelsets are tempting (My concern would be who imports Easton/DT and do they do good customer service… because if I buy them I will likely need it).

I would probably go SP-AM4 with Flow’s – but I need new discs anyway.

Thats a proper walkers axe… the useful type as used by winter walkers instead of the short type used by winter climbers (and “****” that strap them to the back of their rusksacks to look like a climber type). An axe is no use when it’s strapped to the back of a rucksack, it needs to be in your hand ready for action, a long axe like that is much better if your not planning to climb ice faces as it will be in your hand being used like a walking stick… lecture over… have a nice day.

My 5 and 3 year olds like chosing from the record box. Culture Shock went down well!

Beetroot poo brown :wink:

36 Float will be more plush that the Talas as there are less seals and stuff inside, or the Vanilla. According to Fox the best 160mm air fork is the 36 Float 180mm RC2 with the travel limited to 160mm.
Also heard good things about Bos Deville and would love to try one.