Nicely written as always and I totally get your point. I have some thoughts though. First of all I think we all need to loose our pride and admit, that we may think we have all the idea on what we're doing, we can only speak for ourselves.
It reminds me about some discussions I witnessed, on the new Norcos especially the Optic. Everyone seemed unsatisfied and said that the whole High Pivot concept doesn't fit on a small trail bike. Whereas I myself ride a Banshee Phantom, a bike with fantastic linkage design and really well executed tracking but only 115mm of travel on the rear. And I get the design philosophy behind the Optic. It makes sense to me, less travel means you get into the progression quicker, meaning you can manipulate the bike easier and it doesn't feel bogged down as a HP usually does. Still 125mm are enough travel to provide really good tracking over roots and rocks and with the right geo you don't need much travel to ride techy steep stuff (I ride my Phantom everywhere, on loamy Rooty or loose over hard German Hometrails, to the Swiss Alps and Finale Ligure). But still Norco got a big amount of hate, why they would dare change a perfectly fine bike (a bike that basically has an identical twin in their line-up), and I really think the engineers are misunderstood there.
That leads me to another point: Geo. I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to update their old bike from a 67 degree HA to a 65. Further, I don't see anything wrong with altering the HA on modern bikes as well. A 64 HA rides virtually the same uphill or on the flat as a 66 HA. But on the steep stuff it makes a worlds difference in terms of confidence. I have Nordest Downcountry Steel Hardtail with 130mm, which is my gravel/xc/dc fitness bike, I threw a -2 degrees Works Angleset on it, as I want my 64 degree HA, for when im on the trails with it. With my Phantom its the same. I see the pros of a 66 degree HA, it's just not for me. And taking a perfectly fine bike and just altering that one metric is the same as changing tyres to me. But maybe im too deep into the rabbit hole, after all I ride a 115mm bike with a coil shock, enduro tires and a -2 degree Angleset. It just works so well on the Phantom (but then again it was designed that way as a Hardcore Trail Bike with less travel, so maybe I'm inline with the engineers intentions).
What I totally agree with, is that it's nonsense to overtire a bike. There is this German Magazine that also publishes in English (Enduro Mag) and they always criticize when a bike is specced with less den DD tires. That just doesn't make any sense to me, I love my lightweight super grippy Onza tires.
One last note, I really don't want to be that guy, but you had a disclaimer on why you write about guys here. And while I think that its great, that you explain that and that you obviously reflect your writing and thinking, I just want to add, that one of the reasons women don't tinker that much is this kind of socialization, surrounding us all. Girls might not get encouraged enough to tinker and women might not be represented enough in these kind of texts. So they don't get the support and conversely the confidence to change something about their bikes. I agree with your point, that it's not something you usually see, but repeating that stereotype here, even if it's with good intentions, is also reinforcing it. We don't expect women to tinker with their bike, so we won't write about, discuss with or encourage them, so they don't feel confident to tinker with their bikes and so this stereotype manifests in reality. As I said, kudos on reflecting and mentioning it, just my two cents as a fellow rider, who's girlfriend is also riding (far better than me) and is struggling with the bro-culture in mountain biking.
March 20, 2024, 5:40 a.m. - LeLo
Nicely written as always and I totally get your point. I have some thoughts though. First of all I think we all need to loose our pride and admit, that we may think we have all the idea on what we're doing, we can only speak for ourselves. It reminds me about some discussions I witnessed, on the new Norcos especially the Optic. Everyone seemed unsatisfied and said that the whole High Pivot concept doesn't fit on a small trail bike. Whereas I myself ride a Banshee Phantom, a bike with fantastic linkage design and really well executed tracking but only 115mm of travel on the rear. And I get the design philosophy behind the Optic. It makes sense to me, less travel means you get into the progression quicker, meaning you can manipulate the bike easier and it doesn't feel bogged down as a HP usually does. Still 125mm are enough travel to provide really good tracking over roots and rocks and with the right geo you don't need much travel to ride techy steep stuff (I ride my Phantom everywhere, on loamy Rooty or loose over hard German Hometrails, to the Swiss Alps and Finale Ligure). But still Norco got a big amount of hate, why they would dare change a perfectly fine bike (a bike that basically has an identical twin in their line-up), and I really think the engineers are misunderstood there. That leads me to another point: Geo. I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to update their old bike from a 67 degree HA to a 65. Further, I don't see anything wrong with altering the HA on modern bikes as well. A 64 HA rides virtually the same uphill or on the flat as a 66 HA. But on the steep stuff it makes a worlds difference in terms of confidence. I have Nordest Downcountry Steel Hardtail with 130mm, which is my gravel/xc/dc fitness bike, I threw a -2 degrees Works Angleset on it, as I want my 64 degree HA, for when im on the trails with it. With my Phantom its the same. I see the pros of a 66 degree HA, it's just not for me. And taking a perfectly fine bike and just altering that one metric is the same as changing tyres to me. But maybe im too deep into the rabbit hole, after all I ride a 115mm bike with a coil shock, enduro tires and a -2 degree Angleset. It just works so well on the Phantom (but then again it was designed that way as a Hardcore Trail Bike with less travel, so maybe I'm inline with the engineers intentions). What I totally agree with, is that it's nonsense to overtire a bike. There is this German Magazine that also publishes in English (Enduro Mag) and they always criticize when a bike is specced with less den DD tires. That just doesn't make any sense to me, I love my lightweight super grippy Onza tires. One last note, I really don't want to be that guy, but you had a disclaimer on why you write about guys here. And while I think that its great, that you explain that and that you obviously reflect your writing and thinking, I just want to add, that one of the reasons women don't tinker that much is this kind of socialization, surrounding us all. Girls might not get encouraged enough to tinker and women might not be represented enough in these kind of texts. So they don't get the support and conversely the confidence to change something about their bikes. I agree with your point, that it's not something you usually see, but repeating that stereotype here, even if it's with good intentions, is also reinforcing it. We don't expect women to tinker with their bike, so we won't write about, discuss with or encourage them, so they don't feel confident to tinker with their bikes and so this stereotype manifests in reality. As I said, kudos on reflecting and mentioning it, just my two cents as a fellow rider, who's girlfriend is also riding (far better than me) and is struggling with the bro-culture in mountain biking.