Roger Waters he’s a just plain wrong. Makes it hard to listen anything Pink Floyd

What’s the deal with Roger Waters? He doesn’t strike me as a particularly nice guy and certainly not easy to get on with, but has he actually done anything bad? A very quick Google didn’t turn up any mud other than the usual on-going spat with Gilmour.

I’m surprised at the number of food snobs here! PE is not at all bad for a quick meal with the kids. Of course there are better indys, but there are plenty of shit ones around too. I’ve never had a bad experience at PE, which I can’t say for other restaurants. I’m not going to go PE for a special occasion, but still nice to have the option of a reasonable pizza when you are in town. Plus our 7 year old loves their supermarket margheritas!

Which items do you use in your life that are considered the quality standard by which all other similar items are judged?

The key words being “quality standard” and “similar items” rather than antiquated status symbols:-

iMac, iPhone, iPad
Naim Audio
Pioneer Kuro plasma TV (although obsolete today)
Goretex
Hulsta furniture
Miele appliances
Dualit Toaster
Nespresso coffee machine (as far as capsule coffee machines go)
Dyson cordless vac (even though the plastic feels like Airfix quality)
Omega Speedmaster “moon watch” (definitely THE benchmark for watches worn on the moon!)
DOXA Sub 300 diving watch
Michelin tyres
Bilstein dampers
Royal Canin dog food (not that I actually eat it myself)
Porsche 911 (but could also be classed as an antiquated status symbol)
Tesla (tricky one this as build quality is a bit iffy, but they are certainly the benchmark EVs)

You might need to see more than one adviser. For your tax status you need a good accountant (ideally one with Chartered Tax qualifications, which most don’t have). Pensions and investments are more the realm of financial advisors (can of worms), but a good accountant will point you in the right direction after reviewing your estate. So in summary I would start with a Chartered accountant, the initial meeting will be free.

-Mazda MX5… Too obvious for me!

Sometimes you should go with the obvious. I would hire one too for that kind of use. Trying to buy and flip cars is too much hassle, especially in that price range.

One of the advantages of not pushing your training to the max all the time is that you don’t tend to suffer as many injuries or develop chronic pains. So many elite athletes end up knackered before they even hit 40. That’s my excuse for being lazy anyway! But seriously I think there is something to be said for pacing yourself, resting and not thrashing yourself into the ground every day. Especially as you get older. Probably why I’ve gravitated toward shorter rides and more variety of exercise in recent years. It feels like a better balance that way and I feel stronger too.

The SRAM PF30 in my Specialized Enduro is junk. The original factory fitted one started creaking after a few hundred miles, but I lived with it for ages as it felt smooth enough and the creaking didn’t get any worse until it had a few thousand miles on it. I got my LBS to fit a new one last year and that started creaking after about a dozen rides, worse than the original. My new bike thankfully has a threaded BB. I wouldn’t risk buying another bike with a PF30.

I try to be realistic. For me the most important things are diet and sleep. I also try to do at least 4 decent workouts a week of at least 20 mins duration. HITT training seems to work well for me (on cross-trainer and bike machine) and takes up a minimum amount of time. I like kettle bells too for strength training.

When I was in my 20s and 30s and to some extent my 40s I always thought I could eat whatever I felt like and exercise it off. But now in my early 50s I’ve come to realise that you need to be careful what you eat. With a decent diet (still not perfect, but cut out loads of sugar) I’m now as fit as I was back in my early 30s. I don’t compete, I just ride for fun.

Most bars are about 5 deg rise, 8 deg backsweep. How far do you have to rotate them to give them downsweep? I can’t be bothered doing the maths but it’s obviously more than the 20-30 deg back that head angles are at.

But does it not depend how the rise is inclined relative to the backsweep and upsweep? On the 3 modern bars I have on different trail bikes (Specialized Enduro, SC Bronson and Canyon Neuron), all of them are clearly designed to be run with the riser axis approx vertical. The Canyon is even clearly marked zero close to vertical with a matching stem. Obviously how you choose to run them is personal preference, but I don’t think aligning THESE bars with the fork angle has any special relevance. Your bars could be quite different of course. But I’m certainly not the only one on this thread who has observed this.

But they are not MY bars.

It kind of looks like you are in the medium range for reach.

You appear to have long legs for your height, so you probably could make medium or large work. That bike seems very compact, but I’m used to seeing numbers for modern trail full Sussers, which are far longer, but with much shorter seat posts. If you have long arms (Google ape index) then go large. Otherwise medium.

Another thing I’ve learnt from pro motorsport is that a lot of things that “feel” different are not necessarily better or worse (as measured on the stopwatch). Things that subjectively “feel” good can actually be slower and vice-versa, or simply make no difference at all. Humans are basically not very objective!

you get used to it

That’s the bottom line with these things. Most people adapt to what they have and when the change is relatively small it soon gets forgotten in the noise.

interestingly mx bars are considered neutral when the rise is in line with the forks

But modern mtb bars are nothing like the same shape. My grips would be pointing down at the floor if I ran the rise in line with the forks. That applies to all 3 trail bikes we have in our garage (under 5 years old). Bars (recent mtb that is) seem to be designed with the rise close to vertical to get the correct upsweep and backsweep angles. Then it’s a matter of personal preference and bike fit to tune them from there. This idea of aligning the rise with the forks now seems totally irrelevant to me (unless you have mx bars).

Any clue what wider rims do to rolling resistance? I understand that they help shape the tyre better for trail cornering but are they slower on longer distances?

I doubt you are going to get an objective answer to that question. Probably better to consider your tyre choice and see what rim width the tyre manufacturer recommends for them (which will probably be a range of widths at best).

30 mm seems to be on trend with new trail bike builds, so that’s probably a safe bet. My new bike came on 30 mm carbon DT rims and they seem great. The 2.35 Maxxis tyres seat nicely on them and I always thought narrower rims just look “wrong” with wider mtb tyres – probably a hang-over from the days when 2″ trail tyres were considered “wide”.

@moshimonster, at a 90 head angle the change in flop caused by a degree change in head angle (say, to 89) is at its highest. By contrast, at a 45 head angle, the change in flop caused by changing the head angle to 46 will be negligible. All assuming you adjust the fork offset to keep the trail constant in those situations. Trigonometry is fun!!!

Sure, but there isn’t going to be very much absolute “flop” at 89 deg even if the rate of change per degree of head angle is at its highest in that range. There is moderate change per degree in the realistic head angle range we see and a moderate amount of floppiness!

Well to muddy the water further, the E29 went like stink off a shovel with the stock Fox DPS shock – but when I swapped to a Ohlins STX it was much less perky (but much more grippy).

Tons of compression on the stock shock obvs.

Again, this just goes to show how largely irrelevant the generic suspension type can be. My Enduro 29 has a 2015 Cane Creek inline shock – recently re-built by TFT. It goes well enough, but I was pretty shocked how much better my Canyon pedals uphill. They are both FSR designs, but feel completely different to pedal. I haven’t compared their kinematics, but I can’t imagine them being very much alike.

I know what you’re getting at and it’s correct – but (and this is a good geek-out mental 3D topic thread, apologies to the OP for the diversion..) .. to corner any bike would need some lean, and as soon as you lean that 90 deg HTA and negative long offset fork you’d have forces on steering creating what I think would be effectively very similar to ‘flop’, a force turning the bar into the corner direction (but..yeah, sort of irrelevant..)

Agreed, I was only using this extreme example to demonstrate how trail and head angle differ in terms of their effect on camber change with steering lock. The simplistic way of looking at it is to think of “trail” as providing the steering weight/feel (zero trail would give extremely light steering with no feel) and head angle as providing the stability (slacker head angle more stable). In practice they work together, so if you want maximum stability and a damped steering feel then a slack HA + high trail is the way to go. A shorter fork offset is one way of achieving this aim, especially if you don’t want to go overly slack. If you want a more agile responsive setup, then steeper HA and less trail is required.

There is no right or wrong approach as long as it suits the rider and terrain. My local singletrack (Woburn) is super tight and twisty and fairly technical in parts, though there are few steep descents or high speed sections. So stability is never an issue on a modern trail bike. This terrain suits more agile and compact (basically less fashionable) geometry best.

Yeah some four-bar frames can pedal really well, like my old Spesh Enduro 29 or Zestys.

Just to emphasise my point about bikes with the same generic suspension type, I was actually comparing my Canyon Neuron CF (130 mm FSR) with my Spesh Enduro 29 (155 mm FSR). My Enduro pedals like a sack of mash compared to the Neuron, partly because of the increased travel and partly because of the kinematic design. My Enduro does pedal reasonably well for what it is, but it’s not in the same class as my shorter travel Neuron, even though they both have the same generic FSR style suspension. The Enduro feels a lot more plush at mid travel, but also sags a lot deeper into its travel when pedalling, especially uphill. Both bikes have the same seat angle within half a degree, but the Neuron feels way steeper when pedalling – in a good way.

according to the formula, changing offset will change flop by changing the trail, which is one of the factors. More trail=more flop. The slight head angle change you also get will operate in the same direction. And that is what I understand flop to be as well. The trigonometry is well tricky though.

It’s really the head angle that determines steering flop, although head angle and trail are somewhat inter-related in that changing HA affects the trail (unless you change the offset). Let’s say you had a 90 deg HA and a massive (negative) offset to provide some trail, you still wouldn’t get any steering flop ie wheel camber change with steering. What you would have though is a large scrub radius.

You should also not forget that bikes are designed as a package, and whilst it might be OK to alter the fork offset by 10% or so and the bike still behave acceptably (as you might if you increased your fork travel a similar amount), if you change it by a much larger amount, the likelihood of it ruining the handling of your bike will increase drastically too!

Totally agree with this ^ For example my bike is designed around a 130 mm travel, 51 mm offset fork, 60 mm stem and 760 mm bars. One reviewer decided to try a more fashionable 44 mm offset fork, shorter stem and wider bars. Result was a mixed bag. He thought the 44 mm offset was better for high speed stability, but more sluggish for tight singeltrack. The shorter stem and wider bars just made the steering too light and twitchy. Standard setup was actually more in line with the bike’s intended usage. But it does show that you can “tune” the feel to your personal taste if you know what affects what. Simply following fashion may or may not work for you.

I live reasonably close to Cannock and tend to ride there every week over winter to save churning up the natural trails I usually ride when the ground it soggy and soft and not so enjoyable to ride, so for me Cannock is a great little weekly blast over the winter and at £12 a pop would turn out to be more expensive than crack and hookers.

Have we even established if £12 is the only charging option? To me that sounded like an “all day” charge, which would be very reasonable if you were going to be there all day. But maybe there are hourly rates or an annual pass?

Maybe the fees should be means tested? Turn up with an £8k bling-susser and pay the full £12 or £1 for your 20 year old Halfords HT.

My Canyon Neuron CF pedals really well for a 130 mm travel bike. The mid part of the travel is very supportive and provides a great platform to push off. I can run the shock fully open for pretty much everything and only lock it out for steep fireroad climbs out of the saddle.

I wouldn’t get hung up about Horst vs VPP vs whatever else. It’s all down to specific bike design and intended purpose. My bike (Horst link) was specifically designed for efficient pedalling and the trade-off is a slightly less plush ride. The travel is split into 3 distinct phases – soft initial phase, supportive mid and progressive end. It is quite sensitive to sag setting, but once dialled in it’s hard to fault. It pedals night and day better than my 160 mm travel bike (also high-end Horst/FSR design).

Some graphs in the link below. Anti-Squat is at around 90% and pretty much constant for all gears and travel.

http://linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2019/08/canyon-neuron-cf-2019.html

So in summary I would look at bikes with modest travel (120-130 mm range) and suspension specifically tuned for pedalling efficiency (regardless of their generic design). You might also want to consider a bar operated lock-out, but I’m happy to reach down for the Fox lever – not that I feel much need to use it on this bike.

There is a lot of variation in merino quality. I use it all the time for skiing (layered, but never as an outer layer). The main advantage I’ve noticed is that it doesn’t stink like synthetics tend to do. Also lasts forever IF decent quality. Cheap merino on the other hand tends to disintegrate in no time. I’ve got a couple of mid layer tops that are easily 15 years old, heavily worn and still look fine with no holes or wool bobbles. Merino base layers are great too and super comfortable (again IF the quality is right). They are also very warm for their thickness/weight and wick moisture away from skin effectively. But for uk biking I often find them too warm and level of sweatiness can be simply too much. So I basically stick to synthetics for most of my cycling, but I do wear my merino stuff in mid-winter. I do have a couple of merino T-shirts which I sometimes ride in casually out with the kids etc. Again they are less smelly than synthetics, but no other significant benefits.

About right – +/- 0.5 degree. Usually closer, but chat on angles when you might not know the actual angles you’re riding is also a bit pointless. A lot more noise in the ride/terrain and difficulty to measure a complex-shaped FS MTB than either with a trad frame tube road bike.

It’s still useful to know what affects what though. Tolerances are the same regardless of your baseline geometry and if you fit a fork with 4 mm less offset to the same bike then the change is still 4 mm, with its corresponding change in trail. I do agree though that it’s probably all still in the noise when riding on the trail and in this case the tolerances in the damper settings between the two forks will probably be more significant than the 4 mm offset difference. Especially if they are totally different dampers or the old one was knackered.

Yes but that is by about the same ammount as the change in offset. 4mm on the wheelbase really is going to be unnoticeable

I agree. The effect of 4 mm offset on trail would be a bit more significant, but not something I would personally care about. Both my current bikes (29ers) have “standard” 51 mm offset forks, so I haven’t tried anything less in recent years. I doubt it would be any kind of revelation.

The navel gazing about fork rake amuses me as I have always thought that head angle and offset make no differences at all when the rear wheel is off the ground.
And clearly even less when the front wheel is.

So are you saying it doesn’t really matter what HA and offset you have on your bike? Or just that incremental changes are not so critical? I would tend to agree with the latter if that’s what you mean. But it’s still interesting to understand the affects of geometry if you are technically minded, even if the real world dynamics are far more complicated. Trail for example is a very dynamic parameter when riding over rough ground. But you still need a baseline to work from.

“Flop” will be greater if you go to a slacker head angle and keep the trail the same by adjusting the offset.

True. If you had a 90 deg HA there would be no flop at all i.e. the wheel would just stay vertical when steered.

I’m struggling to think of any other activity that is so expensive

So you really can’t think of any other activity that costs more than £12?

I presumed the £12 charge was for the full day. Are we saying there isn’t a shorter stay price, like £6 for half a day or an hourly rate? If so then I agree, it’s a rip-off. I would typically only be there for a couple of hours.

Cappuccino for me with an extra strong shot of espresso and oat milk.

the increase also covers having your car washed though while it is parked.

What if you don’t want it washed by some gritty old sponge? I don’t have a problem with paying £12 for a day out on the trails, but I definitely don’t want the car wash. I presume it’s an optional service?

What does wheel diameter do? Obviously as it increases it increases trail but is that all? And there’s a wheel rotational inertia thing too, gyroscopic effects.

Wheel diameter changes other things, but obviously it increases trail and hence why 51 mm offset was originally introduced to compensate. I haven’t given it much thought beyond that as far as steering feel goes.

Stem length definitely affects this too. Going from a 50 to 35mm stem made my steering feel noticeably quicker and lighter (which I didn’t like). Not exactly sure why!

Longer stem means you are applying your steering torque further away from the steering axis, so it’s less “direct” and “slower” feeling.

This is where I get puzzled. How does the steering feel change when you go from a slack long offset design to a steep short offset design, where both geometries have the exact same amount of trail?

Because it’s not only “trail” that affects the overall steering feel. Trail primarily affects steering weight, while caster (head angle) affects how much the steering self-centres and how the dynamic trail changes as you increase steering angle. So it’s the combination of trail, head angle and bar width that give an overall “feel”.

Thinking about this a little more, you would expect with the popularity of 29ers and ever slacker head angles that fork offset should really be increasing to compensate for the large increase in trail with larger diameter wheels and slacker head angles. But it seems to be the opposite trend at the moment with every geo parameter effectively increasing the amount of trail and hence increasing steering weight. The only thing balancing this out is ever wider bars, which counter the increase in steering weight with increased trail. The ratio of bar width to trail basically determines the steering weight at your hands.

It’s a good few years since I’ve been to Cannock. Sounds like it’s changed a lot since the mid-late 2000s when I rode there often. I must make the effort to return.

Basicly shorter offset has the same effect as slacker head angles, but without increasing wheelbase.

Fork offset must change the wheelbase as you are moving the wheel centre relative to the steering axis. More offset adds to the wheelbase and vice-versa. Although it’s a lot less than the wheelbase change from messing with head angles, which I think was your point.

We have used this principle for many years in motorsport i.e. high caster angle with loads of offset to keep the trail low (and hence relatively light steering with plenty of stability). In that application it can make a huge difference to the steering weight.

There appears to be a trend at the moment toward shorter offset forks (which increase the amount of steering trail). The argument is that increased trail provides more stability and self-centring, so should be good for rough high speed/steep descents. The potential downside is a slower steering feel at lower speeds. 4 mm offset doesn’t sound much, but it does amplify the difference in trail at the tyre contact patch. The range of offset we typically see in forks is 42-51 mm and that does significantly change the amount of trail.

But will you notice any difference in real life? Probably not. The steering might “feel” a little different but I very much doubt it will affect your riding in any meaningful way. Bike manufacturers have different views on which is “better”. Some are now fitting short offset forks to 29ers and others are bucking the trend by fitting long offset forks to 27.5 wheels. In other words there is no definitive “best” and it all depends on how “trail” fits in with the rest of the bike geometry and its intended purpose.

I think the opening comments from that calculator link about sum it up for me:-

“Unless you have a custom setup, the handlebar width that comes with your bike is probably determined by:

Fashion. What is cool right now?

The style of bike. Is it a cross country race bike or a trail bike or an enduro bike or a downhill bike?

What the bike company thinks it can sell. What width handlebar do people expect on a bike like this? What width looks cool? Yes, that really happens — and wider bars do look cool.”

For me the calc says 775-815, so “modern” bars would seem to suit me. My current bike actually has 770 bars, which do feel good, if a bit too wide for some of the tight tree runs. I could definitely cope with less width and probably would be faster due to all the tight twisty tree runs. I also remember when 685 mm EA70 monkey bars were considered super wide. How times change.