Is the RFX worth the hold untill spring?

BC · Aug 2, 2010

kidwoo said:
I don't know. I quit reading at the point you used the word 'dab' to describe some ride interfering phenomenon in the year 2010.

All I picture now is a bunch of guys in their 40s in muscle shirts and goatees cheering each other on during a 2mph climb going "fvck yeah! You go dawg!" as they squirrel around in some boulder field.

You go dawg.

LOL..

.
You ride what you got... Don't forget the guy's in thier 50's.

dirtbag · Aug 2, 2010

kidwoo said:
So take your pick. I just thought of something most people probably know. You said it yourself, that's a well known one. My question was "would a lower BB on your bike be a deal breaker on that trail?" That's all. Not "holy shltzor amasa back sooooo extreme brah!!"

But see this is the problem with these silly pissing matches. You can claim what YOU ride is just SO beyond the comprehension of everyone else that all that really happens is that you make a case for your uniqueness and inadvertently make a case for mountain bikes being built for everything else that everyone else rides.......because remember.....the stuff you ride can't be compared with anything else in the country. See the conundrum? If you need a bike to constantly ride at 2mph over saint bernard sized rocks, norco made some sweet frames in 1999 that are perfect, stating for years, the exact same argument. They don't do that anymore however. There's a reason for that.

There are just as many (I'd say more) people out there interested in improved stability at speed and yes, through chunk. Lower bikes provide this. The truth of the matter is if you're dragging a bb on a decent (barring just landing on your chainring/pedals), you're not going that fast. Personally speaking, even on the nastiest of nasty, I like to figure out ways to go fast through it. And here may be where the argument rests: I'm not content to roll down a bunch of rocks. I usually want to gap things and carry enough speed that I can float......not roll down them. So I want the most stable bike possible to take those chances. It's not typically about 'making it down the trail' for a lot of people, but how to do it in the fastest most fluid way.

Climbing however, I'll admit, my argument is at a loss. Like I said before, my day isn't ruined if I have to stop and clip back in. If I'm climbing a bike like the RFX is alleged to be, I'm doing it for the descent. Everything else is secondary. Not irrelevant, but definitely secondary.

Was that really that big of a deal with regards to the bike though? Sounds like she just got caught offguard. I know you've done a hop here or there before because you know it's coming, we all have. Do you now think glorys are too dangerous a bike because of that event?

You do realize that everyone EVERYWHERE says the same thing right?

I wasn't taking a dig at age (I'm not far off the 40 mark myself), just grown ass men acting like making it up the climb of a mountain bike trail is the end all be all of manhood.

Nice gloves in that gif that chizzay posted. I've got a few pairs myself

Wow, I had no idea what I wrote could be so misconstrued. I apologize for that. I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject of BB heights, but not to the degree of dragging me into your pissing match. I am not arguing your point and I am in no way advocating one over the other. I don't see the world as good and evil and do understand the merits of both.

I'm not advocating that the bike industry adopt 14"+ BBs as a standard because old fockers like me like to ride over big boulders. I could care less. In fact, I did say that I am becoming less of an advocate for 14" BBs. No conundrum here. And no need for the '99 Norco, I'm still happy with my '08 Highline :thumbsup:

My position on climbing is that the trail runs both ways and I get just as much of a kick climbing one section as I do descending another. You get your kicks, I get mine. One thing I am sure of is that the more tricks you have in your bag the better. Some sections are best done pinning it, some not.

And please don't confuse me with Jayem, I am not saying that Arizona trails are chunkier than anything else. They are what they are, and I happy to get out and ride them. Maybe someday I'll learn the proper way

kidwoo · Aug 2, 2010

I should have said 'when ONE makes the argument" not "YOU". That did come accross as maybe more personally directed than I meant.

We're on the same page for the most part. Just chanting "tastes great/less filling"

Brodiegrrl · Aug 2, 2010

Mrwhlr said:
Maybe the dw link is connected wrong? I think I read somewhere it's supposed to make up for ground clearance, but I'm just speculating here. You could also be running out of 'wheel rate'.:skep:

the dw is very poppy and really fun on technical trails. There are a lot of rocks and roots we have to deal with lots of time you're hitting stuff well before your suspension has time to recover.

ie, there is a lot of variability in terrain we deal with so no one set up is ideal.

dirtbag · Aug 3, 2010

LAKESNAKE said:
LOL.. .
You ride what you got... Don't forget the guy's in thier 50's.

Is this still cool in 2010?

Mrwhlr · Aug 3, 2010

This one more appropriate...

dirtbag said:
Is this still cool in 2010?

...as LAKESNAKE is Texan:

thefriar · Aug 3, 2010

kidwoo said:
Serious question though (to jayem et al). Have you guys ever ridden a bike with a BB you thought was too low? I mean to the point where you thought either "I could never own this bike" or "I have to sell this new purchase of mine" because it's not something you could live with?

2010 Speshy Demo 8 - I'm not Sam Hill so can't keep the wicked speed all the time, or I ride trails other than the expert DH steep stuff and turning the bike is painful. Even turning the bike around in the lot can be a PITA if you get distracted.

edit... I love this thread for its hilarity, carry on.

kidwoo · Aug 3, 2010

thefriar said:
2010 Speshy Demo 8 - I'm not Sam Hill so can't keep the wicked speed all the time, or I ride trails other than the expert DH steep stuff and turning the bike is painful. Even turning the bike around in the lot can be a PITA if you get distracted.

edit... I love this thread for its hilarity, carry on.

Unless you're talking about hitting rocks in turns, it's not that low bb making turning more difficult.

Check the wheelbases on those bikes sometime. They're ridiculously long for a given size compared to pretty much any other manufacturer. I had an 07 and an 08 Which were basically the exact same except for the BB height. Until I heard the DHRs were going to be similar I was really looking hard at getting one of the newer ones.

thefriar · Aug 3, 2010

Talking about hitting rocks. The huge wheelbase doesn't help much either, its longer than the 29er DH PBJ it sits next to in the rack on the way to the mountain.

The 2011 looks to be a drastic improvement from a dedicated DH race sled to a more All-Park DH bike that is adjustable for race days.

frorider · Aug 3, 2010

thanks for bringing up the wheelbase aspect -- makes me wanna summarize some of the reasons why making comparisons based on nominal, unsagged BB height numbers is misleading:

1. amt of nominal sag => the right amount varies depending on the suspension design, personal preference, choice of shock, etc

2. amt of anti-squat => already covered in this thread. i've found it's particularly relevant to the question of how low is too low when it comes to pedalling up chunky sections.

3. wheelbase => often overlooked is the fact that the modern trend, which i fully support, of slacker HA's, has in general lead to longer wheelbases -- which all else being equal will increase the chance of a bashring hit.

4. hanmerschmidt => i don't own one, but i can e-speculate that they have more bashring clearance.

Doesn't cure pedal strike issues, of course.

5. thin pedals => i heart thin pedals, and do notice the increased clearance when pedalling thru chunky sections, up or down. in recent years we've had some great options emerge for thin pedals.

6. high engagement rear hubs => riders with god-like powers can make do with any freehub, but for most riders (like me), having a 72 pt engagement rear hub makes ratcheting up chunky sections easier.

7. high volume, sub-1000 g tires => there are more and more of these on the market, and they find their way on to a lot of AM/FR bikes. If the frame designer happens to choose low volume tires for frame testing, this can be an issue.

given all the variables above (in addition to what terrain is being ridden), one could argue that the best solution is to design a frame with geo chips or multiple shock mount holes so that each rider can select the best BB height for them w/o having the screwed up shock rate curves that tends to plague older adjustable geo frame designs.

as long as the available options include a setting on the lowish side, i'll be happy.

Bullit_cn · Sep 2, 2010

Soooo...
Any new development yet to date???

Glad to hear it,

Is the RFX worth the hold untill spring?

BC

dirtbag

kidwoo

Brodiegrrl

dirtbag

Attachments

Mrwhlr

thefriar

kidwoo

thefriar

frorider

Bullit_cn

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities