Is stock accuracy in your remit?

If so how?

Is it mentioned specifically in your role description or contract?

Not sure about The Horse Whisperer…The Horseshit Talker perhaps.

This bit is serious though. If you ever post an eye rolling emoji in my direction again i will **** YOU UP!!!

Give me strength. :roll:

I’m not sure how many times I’ve said this, a few already.

Deep breath…I don’t care if people think my bike is crap, its geography (sic) is incorrect etc. I don’t care, I really don’t care. I’ve cared more about things I’ve never even thought about than I care about that.

My point is (I’m losing the will to live even typing this for umpteenth time);

I have an issue with the premise that someone can judge a bike’s handling (any bike, not my bike, any bike, your bike, his bike, your Mum’s bike?) by simply taking the static geometry figures and then (wait for it..) calculating (in their head) a series of extremely complex interrelated dynamic and kinematic (definition: kinematics studies the trajectories of points, lines, other geometric objects, and their differential properties such as velocity and acceleration) equations to determine how a bike will actually ride.

Nobody, of sound mind, can possibly believe this?

It is simply an opportunity to try and sound like some kind of bike genius amongst a sea of people who just like riding bikes for the hell of it. It’s an ego trip.

If it isn’t and JJ is gifted in this repsect, please enlighten us with a detailed description of the process. Please make reference to the dynamic/kinematic principles being applied. I don’t mean vague, ‘oh I look at the design and compare it to my bike’ guff.

That is the issue. Nothing to do with the Capra. By making it an issue of me throwing my toys out because someone has slighted my pride and joy etc is a smoke screen to hide the fact that he’s talking nonsense.

So now you’re trolling me?

I don’t thinks so? A gentle jibe perhaps. In fact the ‘joke’ was on me really as I fell off the JJ wagon first. :oops:

Do you need a reminder?

Oh God no, it was making my foot itch the first time round!!

Get a room you two ^^^^^^^

There’s no need, I’m sure if I gave JJ my inside leg, hips, waist and chest dimensions, plus the length of my todge he’d be able to calculate the dynamics/kinematics of the ‘ride’ without even meeting. :wink:

Ok, I really need to move on now.

:wink:

I know someone who can provide a detailed description of exactly how it will ride without troubling yourself with a test ride. All you need is the geometry numbers and the ability to believe anything you hear?

:x Damn you Woody2000, I was doing so well moving on.

That said, I’m sure I read somewhere that angles and stats written down on a website mean sod all and actually riding them is what counts.

Leeeve it!! :lol:

A mate has just bought the Bronson, he rates it having come from a carbon Spesh enduro 26″

It is a bit ‘pink’ though.

DaveyBoyWonder – Member
6 pages, a handful of recommendations and evidence that YT can answer emails pretty quick.

Cheers all :S

So what are you buying then?

I got a reply from YT (pretty good response time) and they basically said if you ride bike parks a lot and want a ‘play’ bike get the small, but if it’s for general riding: ‘going on a tour or going really fast’, get the medium.

Yeah but wadda they know? :roll:

Now I’ll move on :wink:

Trimix – Member
OK, put a sock in it you two, or take it outside……

Whilst I don’t recognise an admonishment from you, you’re not my Dad!

I’ll accept this spat is going nowhere, I think he’s an arse and I’m sure the feeling is mutual, that’s not likely to change so it is time to move on.

Erm…have you read the posts?

JJ

How many times?? Give me strength.

(CAPS means shouting right?)

I DON’T CARE IF YOU DON’T LIKE MY BIKE!!!

I DON’T CARE IF NO-ONE LIKES MY BIKE, IT’S ALL PERSONAL CHOICE AFTERALL!!!

What is irritating is the nonsense you spout about being able to judge a bike by its static numbers. All that crap about assessing it’s dynamics and kinematics. I bet you can’t even explain the difference between the two without Googling it. And to then go on to say all magazine reviewers at crap riders who simply write reviews based on fear and bribery. Wtf?

God you’re obtuseness is exhausting. You have such an over inflated sense of your own ace-ness that you can’t see you talking rubbish. When you have an opportunity to prove yourself you bottle it by saying you not going to dignify it with a response. I suspect deep down you know it’s garbage.

She’s a nurse?! 8O

They’re the worst! Have you not seen that documentary ‘Carry On Matron’?

Is there a reason why your first thought is she’s having an affair, rather than; her car broke down, she fell asleep at her keyboard, went shopping etc?

I’m assuming you’ve phoned her?

You know what deviant, you’re absolutely right. I agree with you entirely!

‘l used CAD to superimpose the geometry over my old bike’…..jesus wept, you guys are missing out….seriously.

:lol:

(In my defence I only did the CAD thing cos I was crapping it that I’d spunked my money on the wrong size, plus it was a slack day at work)

What about something with spring balances?

Like, if you hang a 1kg weight on the end it says 1kg, but if you hang it from a 2:1 lever it only shows 0.5kg?

What about the classic, build the tallest tower out of spaghetti and cellotape that can hold a boiled egg?

How very dare you. Jimjam used to work in CRC

I used to work in a petrol station, doesn’t make me an expert on cars! :roll:

Gets offended when I criticise his bike, sarcastically dismisses slight differences in geometry as being irrelevant….ignores bike companies size chart and needs to go a size up on bike….advises others to do the same.

Oh the ironmongery.

Firstly, I’m not offended if someone doesn’t like the Capra, I’m genuinely not arsed either way.

Secondly, I haven’t dismissed the significance of geometry changes. In fact I spent hours constructing a CAD model of the Capra in medium and large sizes to superimpose over my outgoing Orange 5 to see what differences there were. This was more about fit than trying to make a judgement on the ride characteristics though.

Thirdly, the YT website has a disclaimer basically saying sizing is a personal thing at the end of the day so you don’t have to listen to us!

Fourthly, my ‘advice’ (which they are perfectly capable of ignoring) is based on having ridden a large for a year and having briefly had a go on a small. I’d say that’s pretty reasonably well informed.

Finally, my issue with what you are saying has always been the premise that you can comment negatively about a bike (any bike not necessarily the YT) based on some bullshit about being able to read a bike’s dymanics etc based on the static geometry numbers. Especially when it’s couched in a ‘I know better than those useless corrupt magazine numpties’ attitude.

Now, unless you can convince me you’re Nico Vouilloz or Greg Minnaar or similar, I suspect you’re just talking your game up a bit.

FWIW – you being 5’8″ on a small, I would say you have ordered the wrong size.

I’m inclined to agree, I’m 5’9.5″ (the half is very important :wink: ) and I got a large. It suits me but I think the small is pushing it for 5’8″.

Which is why I said “try” and to use something you know and relate to, like your current bike in order to make an approximation. If I’m spending thousands of pounds on something online I’ll do as much as I can to understand what I’m buying.

But how?

Let’s say your current bike has a leverage ratio of 1:2 and a slightly rising rate curve. Now lets say the bike you’re looking at is 1:1.9 and a linear curve (assuming that info is even available), the chainstays on the new bike are 8mm shorter and the BB is 5mm lower. The seat angle is 0.5deg steeper and the reach is 10mm longer.

What’s the implications of all that? Rides better or worse?

These Capra owners are a touchy bunch!

Honestly, I’m not being touchy, I don’t care if people think they’re the worse bike ever made (clearly they’re not), everyone has their own tastes, priorities, depth of pocket etc. There wouldn’t be so many options if every one thought the same.

In fact I ought to discourage people from buying one, I quite liked it being uncommon, but hey-ho.

The simplest way would be a test ride, if that’s not possible I’ll consider the type of linkage, leverage ratio, curve, shock and tune and try to figure out how it might ride and the best way to do that is to compare it to a known quantity like your current bike.

I think this is my issue. And again I’m not trying to trip anyone up etc but this is just nonsense.

Suggesting you can calculate the leverage ratio, curve and implications of shock tune etc just by looking at it is ridiculous! To then say you can translate that to a completely different bike where all these variables will be different and work out how it will ride is ludicrous.

Why do companies spend £1000’s with data loggers, making incremental changes to all these variables, using pro level riders who are capable of exploiting the differences the tiny changes make to help tune a design, if it was as simple as looking at some dimensions on the drawing board and then comparing to the bike they rode in on.

The only sensible thing you said there was, the best way to tell is ride one, and I agree wholeheartedly with that.

I am prepared to accept you may have a wide and varied background in riding bikes of all sorts of shapes, sizes and designs and that that has provided you with more insight than your average rider. You may very well be able to predict the difference between the handling on a four bar, faux bar, single pivot, VPP, DW link etc.

But, and it’s a big but, I defy anyone to be able to say about any modern MTB, that this bike will ride like a pig and that one won’t, simply by looking at the static geometry numbers. There’s simply too many variables.

You weren’t going to mention it? What was this then?.

Well ok, I mentioned it.

Nevertheless, I’m still interested in your analysis?

Why should he worry about that….LOOK AT THE PARTS ON IT!!!!

I wasn’t going to mention it again JJ but anyway,

I’m intrigued in what you meant when you said you consider the ‘dynamics/kinematics’ of a bike, based on its geometry.

Can you explain using the YT (or any other bike I guess) as an example?

:lol:

Good man!

Oh hang on, aren’t you concerned it might crack 8O ,
or that the top tube is 0.7mm different to what’s ‘on trend’ at the moment, the handling will be shite!!
And don’t get me started on the head angle, that 0.25deg will surely damage your Strava times!!
OMG, and what about the ‘dynamics/kinematics’?? Have you calculated all those 4th order differential equations needed to predict its handling from the static geometry figures??
You crazy, reckless, ‘not a real cyclist’ loser you!!!!! :roll:

Works out £2758 all in according to google currency conversion

I’ve just done the same exercise. I don’t care what anyone says, that is an awful lot of bike for the money (and I don’t mean just the spec!)

Unless they’ve changed their payment methods, you can’t stick it on your credit card.

Cash or Paypal (plus the fees) only I’m afraid.

Oh thank God!

Faith in humanity is restored, I’d hoped there weren’t really be such nobends out there!

The other half of the fun is chatting about them on internet forums…and for that job, the likes of the YT Capra is useless. Bought by the types of people whose wardrobes probably contain an item of FireTrap or SuperDry clothing, they are the most generic/dull/tasteless bike on the market.

A three and a half grand full suspension super bike with Kashima might impress your nextdoor neighbour’s children, or the lads on the shop floor; but if you want to impress the real cyclists on the internet then you need to broaden your horizons. Boasting about how many miles you’ve done just makes you sound big headed.

This is a joke, right?

As a YT owner that doesn’t describe me at all. Not even remotely.

And what does “real cyclist” mean?

Mentioning how many miles you’ve done may be a bit of mild willy waiving, but suggesting people who own a certain brand of bike aren’t ‘real’ cyclists is absurd.

Do you have to be niche and ‘alternative’ to be a real cyclist? WTF?

Singletrack elitism at its utter worst. Why should people feel the need to impress the likes of you? You’re a faceless nobody on a forum.

And yet I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s opinion I valued in any way

And I think I’ll leave it there.

I’m simply pointing out that there is questionable validity in a magazine or online review.

Or a contributor on a forum perhaps?

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

If you’re suggesting the YT and the Zesty had similar geometry and the Zesty was pants downhill, therefore the YT must also be pants downhill, why has it pretty much universally been applauded for it DH abilities? I simply don’t accept that’s because the magazines have been bribed or because the reviewers are crap bike riders.

The other thing I said about magazine reviews is, some of these guys writing the reviews are no better or worse than you or me.

In that case, how do we know we’re right and they’re wrong?

No, you’re assuming that the suspension design of a bike can overcome it’s shortcoming in geometry – it can’t. The Zesty/Spicy was too short in the top tube, too high in the bb so it lacked high speed stability and suffred terribly on high speed steeps.

If you’ve got a 140mm bike (Zesty) which lacks high speed stability with similar numbers to a 170mm then it tells me the 170mm bike won’t be very stable or confidence inspiring at the supposedly higher speeds it’s intended for.

Sorry JJ but I’m going to have to disagree again. (I’m not spoiling for an argument honest, I’m just not getting where you’re coming from)

If the two bikes had the same static geometry (which is what I believe you said) then the amount of travel/suspension design does play a big part. If you’ve got 170mm to play with at 35% sag you can slacken the dynamic angles more than a 140mm travel bike setup at probable 25% sag. Not to mention how progressive the travel is/isn’t.

The two bikes would ride completely differently.

The ‘average frame and geometry’ has stayed the same, just that there’s now an Ali version.

hence my point about the Capra being bought purely on spec by a lot of people.

Not sure that’s true either.

Back to the magazine reviews argument. The consensus has been it’s a great riding bike AND it has a great spec.

Like I said, I doubt YT have the advertising clout to get all the magazines to say its a great bike if it wasn’t.

When I first saw the Capra announced it struck me how close the geometry was to the Lapierre I’d just snapped in half and that bike was dog shit.

Not sure that’s a fair comparison either, the suspension design is completely different. Static numbers are meaningless (as a direct comparison alone).

That’s like saying all cars with the same wheel base and track width are going to drive the same! Nonsense.

DaveyBoyWonder – Member
Had a good look a the Aeris and that also features on the list but I can’t quite think it looks a little “thrown together”? In all seriousness, I’d love to know how they ride.

Just looking at Cotics website and I’d love a Rocket. Wonder if I could do a budget build with last years bits etc…

Contrary to what I said earlier DBW, ignore anyone who says ‘you should by xyz’, half the fun of getting a new bike is the searching and comparing options. Read as much info as you can from a range of sources (including magazine reviews), then just go with your gut and pick something. It’s such a personal thing, nobody has the same priorities and ability to assess all the data, that’s why there’s so many options. Let’s face it, there’s no such thing as a crap bike these days.

Well I can’t speak for most people but the first thing I consider is geometry. Second would probably be kinematics/dynamics.

With the greatest respect to ‘most’ riders, I doubt they would be able to tell how a bike is going to ride based on the geometry numbers on paper, let alone the implications of ‘kinematics/dynamics’. I doubt many would even know what it meant never mind being able to predict it.

Yes a steep head angle = twitchy, long wheel base = stable, low BB = lower c.o.g, etc etc but the a half degree here and a whopping full degree there that separates many of the bikes in a specific genre, nah, don’t think so!

Plus, the static numbers are meaningless when you factor in suspension design and sag, rider size, rider ability to position themselves correctly etc.

Whilst I accept some reviews may be bullshit, I suspect it would be more well documented if a bike was universally rated by magazines (because they were afraid of adverts being pulled) but was actually a turkey.

(I can’t imagine that applies to YT, they’re not big enough to bring a magazine down through pulling adverts!!)

So looks like the Capra is an average frame with average geometry with lots of top spec shiney bits?

A bit harsh. :|