Leaderboard

Meanwhile, in Arkansas...

Naked's framebuilder notes on a prototype interesting perspectives here. good stuff to try to wrap your head around so you know why any aspect of a bike goods good or bad to you. could help you make an informed decision about your next bike purchase, tweaking your current bike, or if you have ambitions for a custom frame some day. I found the following bits of particular interest: Front-Centre is KING! This is the big revelation (along with steering axis below). I have always moved front-centre around as a resultant of bike fit, as I put most of my faith in handling characteristics of head angle and trail. No more! We have all been riding mountain bikes that are way to short in the front. I had always assumed that the slack head angles required to move the front wheel out would result in a chopper feel and too much wheel flop. I realize now that as long as the stem length is kept to a minimum, the whel flop virtually disappears. What is left is a very stable feeling bike that demands to pushed harder. A normal front-centre for us was in the 70cm range. Even a few years ago, it was not uncommon to be as low as 65cm. Now, I'm thinking 77-830 is the sweet spot, even in our tight twisty west coast trails. I think the biggest advantage is that you are now balanced on a much longer see-saw, so every bump is felt less and keeps you away from both tipping points a little longer (think: less likely to go over the bars). I thought tight climbs would suck, but this was also easier. The long resulting longer wheelbase obviously is far more stable through chunder. Cornering feels awkward at first. This is because positioning is identical to the bikes I have had for the last 10 years but the front wheel is 10cm further out in front so I have to get used to initiating a turn 10cm sooner. When done properly, you can really load the front wheel and carve hard without the feeling of jack-knife. This is also about steering axis. Head Angle This is basically unimportant. This obsession with this number has got to stop. It is all about where this lets you get the front wheel placed. This number changes drastically depending on how your fork is set up. On this bike, the head angle varies from about 64.8 to 71 depending on how much travel is used. One thing that can be said is that a hardtail should have a MUCH slacker starting head angle than an equivalent duty full-squish. On a hardtail the head angle is always steepening under compression, where as a full suspension can either steepen or slacken. In most cases a fully tends towards more rear compression and so tends to slacken more during use. I can see pushing head angle out to 61 degrees (unsagged) if needed on a hardtail, but no more than 65 degrees on a fully. After that, you are starting to get too much fork binding on all but the steepest descents. [yeah, about that. everyone fretting over "my bike has to have a ##-degree head tube angle" is likely benefiting from how that angle puts the front wheel further out, not necessarily how it steers. this is cool if your main goal is not going over the bars on a downhill. that might compromise other aspects of handling if not done carefully. not all of us ride down hills 100% of the time, so we need a compromise.] Steering Axis Needs to be as direct as possible. For most mountain bikes this means super short stems. It is not so much the short stem that is important but the resulting hand placement relative to the steering axis. A stem with a 32mm reach on a 780mm bar with normal sweep gets you pretty close to being in line with the steering axis of the front fork. being in front of the steering axis in the old days especially with shorter bars and long stems is what gave us the feeling of wheel flop and the horrible jack-knife scenarios. [I have not heard stem length discussed in this context before. interesting perspective. coincidentally, with a handlebar with 12 degreess of backsweep and a 50mm stem, my hands are about in line with the steering axis.] Lower bars The long front-centre gives you so much more stability and less chance of pitching over the bars, you no longer need to have a high hand position. I can see a real return to wide flat bars, with "riser" bar looking dated real fast. Slacker head angles helps lower the bars. It will be interesting to see what people do to keep bars low enough as the forks get longer and longer. [I am often surprised to see modern bikes long travel forks, a low BB, an upright stem, spacers, and a riser bar. if that works for you, especially if you're tall, go for it. I keep lowering my handlebar (measured relative to the bottom bracket) and it only gets better the lower it gets

Virtual STA is probably closer to 72-73* on that bike. As it looks like hes only going by actual STA. Would like to add the shift towards steeper STAs that has become popular was also necessitated by shorter CS and the need to do something with the tire under full compression. Modern honzo with anything longer than a 40mm stem is blasphemy. Mine has a 35mm with an angleset shortening the reach a bit.

that's probably more effective than all the mathematical crap I just told you to do. but if you wanted a way to verify your suspicions about how the bikes compare, it could not hurt.

Are you comparing the handlebar height relative to the saddle or the BB? The first is important as it relates to seated peddaling comfort, but the latter is essential as it pertains to standing and wrangling the bike. If one bike has a lower BB drop (relative to the axles, not the ground), then the handlebars might be the same height. try this- stand your bike up in a corner as straight as you can get it. it will be hard to get those to be accurate, but try to get it as close as possible. measure from the floor to the grip, then from the floor to the center of the BB. subtract the BB height from the grip height. that's your effective stack height. now measure from the wall behind your bike to the grip. then measure from the wall to the center of the BB. subtract the smaller distance from the longer- that's your effective reach. now do that on your other bike. are they really that much different? easier method: just measure from your BB to the midpoint between your grips. that's what Lee McCormack would call your RAD- Rider area distance. it's the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by your effective reach and effective stack. if that distance from your feet to your hands is radically different, you will have two very different-fitting bikes. depending on the way that centers you on each bike (where your center of gravity is relative to the tire contact patches), that will determine how your bike handles. fit versus handling- two different but connected things. this is a helpful tool to compare two different bikes and equalize the fit- http://bikegeo.net/

Front- center: draw a vertical line through the BB. To horizontal distance from that line to the front axle is the front-center. The distance from that line to the rear axle is the rear-center. If take any bike design and increase the fork length, offset, or reach, you get a longer front-center. The author is saying that head tube angle and fork offset at not that big of a deal, but the longer front-center that results is.

Here's the naughty/not naughty, vaguely naughty, possibly slightly suggestive Pickle connector route: from the north end of Narnia, take Neils Thompson north, proceed through the south "Pickle gate (!)," along to Read Granberry Trail, and turn left ON EXPLORATION WAY(!) to the Braker/Domain intersection. Note: the south Pickle gate closes in the evening and on weekends, or when the research campus goes into lock down because of Code Red high alert terrorist danger situation. If the gate is manned, which it usually isn't, a UT ID should get you through. In this case, backtrack a half block, go east on Innovation Blvd to Burnet and ride along the verge on the west side of Burnet, all the way up to Braker. "Pickle connector" does not show up on Urban Dictionary, but there are other pickle-related terms. Chelsea Tractor is trending: "Any expensive 4 x 4 that is driven in an urban environment as a status symbol, typically for a school run, and will never be driven off road. 'Look, that Chelsea Tractor nearly flattened a kid!'" Taint is also trending, which seems adorably quaint, like it was rediscovered in 2017 and made edgy by frat boys. Side rant: When the Domain was first being hyped, it was touted as being the epitome of New Urbanism: high density/live-work/commercial/ped and bike friendly. It is currently a chronic traffic jam and a disaster for cyclists as a through fare. It is not ped or bike friendly because of high traffic load on very narrow streets. And little sharrow symbols on the pavement? I interpret those as pavement icons indicating "cyclists are screwed" because who in their right mind really believes that cars like to share? The only part of New Urbanism at the Domain that is true is high density. The Domain was planned and approved by the city with zero parkland. Zero. ZERO. This pisses me off because of the pressure it puts on WC. Then our city gave away a prime piece of real estate next door for a soccer stadium that could have been an amazing urban park with a dog park, in an area that is increasing in population density via numerous apartment developments already built out or going up in the immediate area, that are considered desirable because of proximity to the Domain. And yes, high income apartment dwellers would pay for a season or annual pass to access a really nice dog park with a water feature(s). And *steam comes out ears* the city is trying to get a bond approved to BUY MORE PARKLAND. I need to get out more. *checks radar*: Time for a walk!

I have finished my review of the BCP public access land management plan. It is ugly. This "new" draft is a copy of the 2017 version with more "fluff" added. The 2017 draft removed 16 different statements that grandfathered use of parklands that were allowed to be placed in to the BCP with one statement that said [... Grandfathered uses allow continued public access at the same level as were occurring in 1996. However, as stated in USFWS (1996) "management plans for existing parks and preserves which will be included in the BCCP preserve system will need to conform with BCCP management guidelines, goals and policies."] (Square brackets used to indicate a quote itself since the quote included quotation marks) I am getting myself armed with lots of data, information and history. This looks like a repeat of the 2007 attempt by the BCP that was rejected. Then repeated in 2017 when the draft was so bad it never even went to a vote of the Coordinating Committee. There is a meeting next week with BCP staff to try to work out some of the issues and get corrections made. I will not release my comments to the public until after that meeting so the BCP staff has a chance to make improvements. If they do not agree to major improvements we will need anyone who wants to keep existing public access to dedicated parklands that were allowed to be put into the BCP to make their comments known. Those parklands include Emma Long, Barton Creek, Bull Creek, St Edwards and more.

Hey, that's my sign! A true Matt Da Welda original! Of course I fabbed it between shredding trails and sending something.

when she calls you back, please ask if they can finish the Balcones Park extension sometime this decade?

Yes - repeatedly. And the answer is that "there are no changes, they just cleaned it up and made it clearer" and that they only quoted the Habitat Conservation Plan (founding document for the BCCP). Pam LeBlanc wrote a really good summary in the December 4, 2017 Statesman article. It highlights the differences in what staff said and what the public saw.