10 speed mechs may feature different jockey wheels that may make a difference to shift performance. You may not notice the difference though as it wouldn't show as a fault. Or it's just a different sticker.

The chainring has a big effect on suspension action, certainly on my bike when you compare a 22t with a 34t – the pedalling force on the suspension acts along the line of the bit of the chain under tension, the line is very different in the two chain rings and the suspension is sensitive to it.

If the 9 speed mechs were compatible for shift ratios, you may or may not have needed different jockey wheels anyway.

I have a Santa Cruz Bullit, it pedals acceptably in the middle ring, but is a pogoing pig in the little chain ring. Anything that lets me use middle more would be a useful benefit for this bike. Like I said earlier, the extra gear will make it easier to run 1 x 10 too. So not completely pointless, though I appreciate the luddites will always prefer their 7 speed cassettes. Until you point out that before 7 speed there were 'other' numbers too, then they get confused.

It's not really future proofing is it. Your nine speed stuff still works just the same despite there being a higher numbered option available.

I think there is a potential benefit with the 36T cassettes as you can make a better case for 1 x 10 if you're on 2 x 9 now and 2 x 10 if you insist on having the higher gears.

If I wanted to go 1 x 10, would I need derailleur, front chain ring and chain on top of Cassette and shifter?

I've done some deore ones recently, used some cable cutters on the plastic, then tape to seal.

Does it work? No problems so far.

Does it look ugly? Yes if you look at it, but it's under the bars/brakes so you'd have to actively go hunting.

In summary:

Do it.

They're good in a, 'It's nice having these just round the corner' kinda way, but you're going to drive allt he way from Milton Keynes? Go to the Peaks and do some proper biking!

I dumped all my junk on ebay recently, lots of photos clearly described as junk, sold for lots of money. I'll take all our rubbish off you if you can't be bothered, but I'd recommend putting it on ebay.

I have a pro FRS stem, no problems to report, but then I'm not sure what problems people have with stems? If you think it looks good, go for it, it definitely looks better than an Easton Vice though!

I also use gpx2crs to get gpx's on as courses to follow btw.

Think I've worked out what's wrong; all the trackpoints that should be within the track that is showing an error are on the same level as the track. not sure I know how to fix it, but can probably work it out.

The program is called tcx2hrm google it, or I can email it across, yes it takes HR, altitude, cadence, power, speed I think. (I don't have power or cadence sensors) it works pretty well, though it does include any stationary time, which Garmin can ignore. I don't think it copies across any location data, but I don't know as Polar have started doing GPS watches recently.

I added the </Track> that appeared to be missing, but it won't load into GTC at all, it doesn't even say there's a problem with the file now. I did manage to produce a Polar .hrm file from it, but it's only got the first half of the ride in it. Strange!

Hmmmmmmm! I've opened the file in that program it suggests, and found a 'Track' that contains an error. The next line says, "The real problem here is the lack of the closing tag, so scroll down the tree until you see a Trackpoint that is colored yellow, and the start of the next Track." But there aren't any other elements that are highlighted yellow at all.

Any ideas?

The file is on the device, and it opens on the device no problems. I've just done an upload to Garmin Connect, but that hasn't seen the file, though it did fail to load another file for no good reason, but I don't think the two are connected.

I've copied the .tcx off the device and it won't import manually to GTC and tcx2hrm fails too, so looks like it's corrupted, better see what I can do with that article….

The file does open on the device. Trying to upload to connect now. I'm not bothered about the software, I just convert the files to gpx for memory map and .hrm for Polar Pro Trainer

Yeah, I'm not sure why mine always asked me that, but it's stopped doing it now. I've just been pressing the receive from device button in GTC, which should do exactly the same as doing it via the menu, but trying your way now…… no that doesn't make any difference!

Just made a track now and that has uploaded, so what's wrong with the one from last night? I was following a Course actually, rather than just trracking, but I've done that before without problems.

I've put Thors on mine, they work pretty well, lock-down to 100mm for climbs, 140mm for the rest.

There's a reason why we have a Bike Forum and a Chat Forum. It's so I don't have to read crap like this. If you're going to post utter cock threads, put them in the right place, so I can ignore you.

Thanks.

Physio for a diagnosis and advice on what needs strengthening and/or loosening, then do the exercise your'e given and get sports massage as on going treatment. See physio if things aren't improving. That's what I've done in the past, mainly because physios are £30 for 30 mins but I can get the sports massage for £20 for as long as it takes.

Depends on the problem really, money no object it might be better to see a physio all the time for more complicated problems, mine were all things that just needed diagnosis, then treatment, rather than ongoing diagnosis/input from a physio.

When you brake the caliper wants to rotate forwards, so it would be pulling against the lower bolt and pushing against the top mount. So in reality the top bolt doesn't do anything other than keep the caliper in the right position, so I don't think you have a problem.

If it was the lower bolt and you had a wavey rotor, then it's possible that braking with the rotor in a certain position would cause a lock up if the caliper pulled away from t's mount slightly.

I would have no problem riding it as it is.

Tie a wire from the frame to your big toe. Sorted

Patented taper roller bearings are over 400% larger than normal HT2 type deep groove bearings, and are not far off the size used in car rear stub axles. Taper bearings are used in headsets to allow for sideloads on installation and in use, so we packaged this system for BB use. This solves the main cause of HT2 early death, and the easy maintinence solves the other problem of seized bearings. If it can cope with 400kg of weight per wheel on a car, then it sure as well can cope with anything you throw at it!
5 YEAR WARRANTY on this part as only neglect will kill it off. If it gets packed with mud or water then pop out the bearing and lip seal, scrub clean and regrease. Simple, sturdy and long lasting. Look after it and it will keep you rolling for years.

I wouldn't buy anything that came with this description, there are so many things wrong with it!

He says the bearings are 'almost' the same size as those on a car. So they're not the same then? Then he ignores that a car wheel bearing has a lot more of the rollers, so are completely different in terms of performance. Then states it can cope with the loads of a car, as if it was the same bearing. So is it a car bearing or not? That's a rhetorical question.

Then it has to be installed by a mechanic for the warranty to be valid, yet it appears to be ok for the user to take bearings out and **** about with them? Or does that invalidate the warranty too? Another rhetorical question.

As said already, people don't want a bottom bracket that requires maintenance because most people aren't going to start popping cranks off to see whether the bottom bracket needs work or not.

PM brakes, to set them up I would normally just do the bolts up almost tight, lock the brakes on, then tighten the bolts before releasing the brakes. If you think IS is easier to setup, it sounds like you're not doing it right!

IS is a far superior system to post mount. Post mount is easier for duff mechanics to set up but most importantly is better for production engineering. Much easier to assemble bikes on the production line with post mount.

Its a dreadful bodge using slotted mounts on a brake and is heavier and more flexible

Not so sure about this. If the brakes were on a car the bolts wouldn't even be done up tight and the calliper would float/self centre themselves. Not sure why it's heavier either, but can't see why it would be inherently lighter either?

With PM when you brake, you load the mounts along the line of bolts and the push/pull is against the thread, with the force being transmitted directly into the fork leg in it's strongest plane. With IS you have a shear force across the bolts and this load is transferred sideways as well, so the mount itself is under greater stress.

The above is a marginal benefit, but PM is easier to setup and adjust for pad wear, or a bent rotor and it's also much easier to change rotor sizes too. Only disadvantage vs IS that I can see is that if you wreck one of the threads, it's the fork lower you've ruined not a half caliper.

Anyone remember how you hcanged otor sizes with Hope brakes? you bought a new half caliper. PM is progress.

Oh, on the tapered headtube thing; you tend to have a bigger downtube than top tube these days, presumably for strength to weight considerations, running a larger bottom race probably optimises the downtube design, but there isn't the same benefit at the top. Would look a bit ugly with a skinny top-tube on the 1.5" standar I reckon.

My build is earlier in the thread if you want a look. I'm running 2009 Thors and Syncros bits that are pretty light, but the wheels and tyres are heavier than they could be and the cassette is Deore, so some excess in there. Running 203mm + 180mm Magura floating rotors, which are very heavy and Louise brakes, whihc I think are relatively heavy?

Anyway, when I weighed it I had thought it might have been lighter, but I don't know how accurate the scales are, or really how much people bullshit on weights, so not sure what it should be.

I wasn't disappointed as it's built for the riding I do, not down to an arbitrary weight point. Besides, I've been riding about on a 38lb Bullit for the last year or so, so it feels light to me and flies up the hills. If I wanted light I would have weighted for the sub 1kg Whippet frame.

Actually, that's quite a good idea, I'm sure it would make a good income at the trail centres.

The 'hard' bits at trail centres should be like the flumes at swimming pools; an attendant at the top who has camera footage all the way down, so they can see when the last rider has exited and set the next off on their way. You would obviously need a serious of 'life guards' all the way down, in case of difficulty.

The drag thing is a bit of a misnomer, once a conventional setup is a bit worn, light on oil or caked in mud, there's going to be plenty of drag there too!

The new 11 speed one out in September/October is more like 2 x 9, and a Rohloff is pretty much 3 x 9.

I weighed my build in a 28lbs, but I don't know how accurate my bathroom scales are. I thought it was a little heavy as all my bits are pretty light, syncros carbon bits and Thor's on the front etc. But the wheels, brakes and rotors are pretty heavy and I have deore cassette on, so it might be right. Need to get some scales to weigh bits I think.

Stock answer from Peachos! The seat was at the right height for pedalling up the hill we were……er……pedalling up, user error to not put it down again for a down. Great crash though!

What are the negatives? I'm all for it I think.

I was going to suggest the Ging Chain Device that I have sat in my box of tools; it's a DCD but faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more bling! I also have one of the original rear crudcatchers, and one of the original fronts, love it!

I once saw Peachos ride my bike down a hill to rescue a be-punctured rider, half way down he did one of his somersaults and landed un-helmeted head-first in a mud/shit mix. There was no reason for this, though it was incredibly funny! That wasn't his fault either.

Actually, yes, today I am doing marketing.

The point of carbon is that it is easier (ie cheaper) to make it rigid where it needs to be strong, whilst still retaining some give to make a more comfortable ride. The rear end of mine certainly doesn't feel harsh to ride on rough climbs, yet the frame feels very stiff everywhere else.

In this instance, you're going to struggle to find a titanium frame at all at the price point, though there are plenty of expensive carbon frames where that argument would work better.

I have one of those Enduros, now that is an ugly bike! Agree on the Orange 5.

Why would I want a new sofa when I'm out riding my bike? Perhaps you should get up off your sofa and ride your bike too, then you might understand ;-)

No use of the percussive instrument this time, I used a vice to fit the headset instead.

Tyres are 2.4" Rubber Queens, yes they're big, though they are 2.4", but they roll well, they're not even too draggy on the road and they grip like **** at a ghetto'd 20psi off road, which is what we're all here for.

epicsteve, perhaps you could post some pics of your bike so we can assess the validity of your statement?

I fitted mine without weighing it, so I can't help, but it all felt very light apart from the steel crown race that goes onto the forks, which seemed to weigh a fair bit.