On the Pedals
The Daily Grind
Over The Bars
Ask MBT
June 2010
Question of the Month
Dear MBT:
Let me get this straight, the biggest advantage of an air shock is weight shavings over a steel coil over, right? And shock companies are always trying to get their air shocks to feel more like a metal spring-equipped unit. Trouble is air shocks have seal issues and are notorious for not being able to stand up to abuse like a coil over can. So why doesn’t someone just make a lighter coil spring to give riders the best of both worlds?
Dan “The Man” Stevens
Let me get this straight, the biggest advantage of an air shock is weight shavings over a steel coil over, right? And shock companies are always trying to get their air shocks to feel more like a metal spring-equipped unit. Trouble is air shocks have seal issues and are notorious for not being able to stand up to abuse like a coil over can. So why doesn’t someone just make a lighter coil spring to give riders the best of both worlds?
Dan “The Man” Stevens
Dan:
Your logic is sound and such an invention does indeed exist- Obtainium Performance Products is one such company offering titanium springs for coil shocks that reduce weight while maintaining the beefiness and reliability the style is known for. The downside that your letter fails to mention is that with exotic materials comes increased cost, in this case springs begin around the $300 mark and go up from there. Obviously dropping this much coin on a shock upgrade may seem a bit excessive to some when, with a bit of shopping, a brand new air shock can be had for less. However, serious racers and downhill aficionados have proven the market for titanium shock springs exists with their wallets and companies like Obtainium are there to fill the demand.
Dear MBT:
I’ve been on the fence about going to the 29-inch wheel on my next bike and, through my shopping research, came across your review of the Carver 96er. The idea of meeting the wheel-size debate in the middle with a larger wheel in the front and the traditional smaller wheel in the rear is an intriguing one to me. My question is, why isn’t the opposite configuration (small wheel in the front/ bigger in the rear) popular? Would it negatively affect handling? It has been the configuration on tractors since the their inception.
Rich Ramon
I’ve been on the fence about going to the 29-inch wheel on my next bike and, through my shopping research, came across your review of the Carver 96er. The idea of meeting the wheel-size debate in the middle with a larger wheel in the front and the traditional smaller wheel in the rear is an intriguing one to me. My question is, why isn’t the opposite configuration (small wheel in the front/ bigger in the rear) popular? Would it negatively affect handling? It has been the configuration on tractors since the their inception.
Rich Ramon
Rich:
The reason for this is actually quite simple and it has to do with the reason many riders are attracted to bigger wheels in the first place: Circular reach. The smaller diameter the wheel, the more difficult time it has going up and over objects in its path (which is why skateboards don’t do so well off road). The idea behind the 29-inch wheel’s popularity stems from the concept that this principle is happening hundreds and maybe even thousands of times cumulatively each and every time we ride. Less rolling resistance means a smoother, less physically demanding experience as the miles pile up. The trouble is this comes with some consequences, at least when compared to the “standard” 26” wheel size: namely wider cornering and decreased acceleration. Many riders are content to accept the bad for the good.
The hybrid concept as displayed in the Carver 96’er work because the front of the bike benefits from this increased circular reach while the rear still enjoys the snappy acceleration of the 26-inch hoop. Physics dictates that the rear wheel has little choice but to follow once the front clears an obstruction. Reversing this balance would only sacrifice the rear of the bike’s acceleration abilities while the front would continue to suffer from decreased rolling resistance. So indeed, there would be no notable benefit to reversing the hybrid configuration.
The reason for this is actually quite simple and it has to do with the reason many riders are attracted to bigger wheels in the first place: Circular reach. The smaller diameter the wheel, the more difficult time it has going up and over objects in its path (which is why skateboards don’t do so well off road). The idea behind the 29-inch wheel’s popularity stems from the concept that this principle is happening hundreds and maybe even thousands of times cumulatively each and every time we ride. Less rolling resistance means a smoother, less physically demanding experience as the miles pile up. The trouble is this comes with some consequences, at least when compared to the “standard” 26” wheel size: namely wider cornering and decreased acceleration. Many riders are content to accept the bad for the good.
The hybrid concept as displayed in the Carver 96’er work because the front of the bike benefits from this increased circular reach while the rear still enjoys the snappy acceleration of the 26-inch hoop. Physics dictates that the rear wheel has little choice but to follow once the front clears an obstruction. Reversing this balance would only sacrifice the rear of the bike’s acceleration abilities while the front would continue to suffer from decreased rolling resistance. So indeed, there would be no notable benefit to reversing the hybrid configuration.
Dear MBT:
While unloading my shiny new Pivot from the bumper rack, I noticed a fresh gouge on the downtube apparently brought about thanks to the pedal of her Santa Cruz Juliana in transit. Just a friendly reminder to your readers, remember to take the pedals off before load up! It’s a good thing the shop gave me touch up paint with the bike.
Keith McTonnal
While unloading my shiny new Pivot from the bumper rack, I noticed a fresh gouge on the downtube apparently brought about thanks to the pedal of her Santa Cruz Juliana in transit. Just a friendly reminder to your readers, remember to take the pedals off before load up! It’s a good thing the shop gave me touch up paint with the bike.
Keith McTonnal
Keith:
Good pointer, and sorry to hear how you came about this bit of wisdom. However, if it’s any consolation for future load ups, we’ve encountered a product called Pedal Socks that are simply little pouches that slip over the pedals then tighten with a draw cord. Not only do they prevent pedal to bike contact like you’ve described but they also do a nice job in preventing gouging up the paint in the bed of a pickup truck or the ever-sensitive area just above the ankle that pedals love to chew on during load up/ unloading. They go for around $10 a pair. They can be reached here: www.Techno-Quest.net
Good pointer, and sorry to hear how you came about this bit of wisdom. However, if it’s any consolation for future load ups, we’ve encountered a product called Pedal Socks that are simply little pouches that slip over the pedals then tighten with a draw cord. Not only do they prevent pedal to bike contact like you’ve described but they also do a nice job in preventing gouging up the paint in the bed of a pickup truck or the ever-sensitive area just above the ankle that pedals love to chew on during load up/ unloading. They go for around $10 a pair. They can be reached here: www.Techno-Quest.net
Dear MBT:
I’m wondering if you could recommend the smallest action sports camera on the market. I’ve been itching to make a Youtube vid of my upcoming trip to Whistler but don’t want a bunch of equipment like a remote to worry about and while my friends insist on the Gopro Hero, I hate the way that big box looks sitting on top of your helmet. Any ideas?
Clifford Bernard Jr.
I’m wondering if you could recommend the smallest action sports camera on the market. I’ve been itching to make a Youtube vid of my upcoming trip to Whistler but don’t want a bunch of equipment like a remote to worry about and while my friends insist on the Gopro Hero, I hate the way that big box looks sitting on top of your helmet. Any ideas?
Clifford Bernard Jr.
Clifford:
You are in luck as we actually just got word of what could very well be the perfect solution to your dilemma. A new firm called Video Eyewear Products has recently released what they call the Model VE-1. It’s actually a pair of sunglasses with a camera lens smack dab in the middle of the nose bridge and a microphone on the arm. Apparently it comes with 4GB of internal memory which they state is good for about 3 hours of capture (probably a good thing considering there is no way to slip a memory card in for additional memory from what we can tell). The glasses are fully rechargeable and have a mini-USB 2.0 jack on the left arm for dumping your video on the computer for editing or uploading. The full specs can be viewed on their site, but apparently it shoots in 30 frames per second and weighs only 70 grams. It goes for $189 and includes a hard carrying case- probably a good idea considering how often the MBT crew sits on their sunglasses!
www.VideoEyeWearProducts.com
You are in luck as we actually just got word of what could very well be the perfect solution to your dilemma. A new firm called Video Eyewear Products has recently released what they call the Model VE-1. It’s actually a pair of sunglasses with a camera lens smack dab in the middle of the nose bridge and a microphone on the arm. Apparently it comes with 4GB of internal memory which they state is good for about 3 hours of capture (probably a good thing considering there is no way to slip a memory card in for additional memory from what we can tell). The glasses are fully rechargeable and have a mini-USB 2.0 jack on the left arm for dumping your video on the computer for editing or uploading. The full specs can be viewed on their site, but apparently it shoots in 30 frames per second and weighs only 70 grams. It goes for $189 and includes a hard carrying case- probably a good idea considering how often the MBT crew sits on their sunglasses!
www.VideoEyeWearProducts.com
Dear MBT:
I just read your gear review on Kenda's Nevegal Tires. I am currently running these tires with tubes in very wet and rooty conditions. I have found that I like them best at 30-32 psi. In fact, I love them coming from my Panaracer Fire XC Pros. But, I am starting to pinch flat.
I went out and bought a set of Mavic Crossmax ST UST wheels. I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should stay with my current tires with tubes, and up the pressure a little bit (to avoid the pinch flats), or to go tubeless. I have read that most folks run sealant with a UST set up. I have also read that Stans will eat a Kenda tire, but that Slime sealant will not. Finally I’ve heard that the Kenda Nevegal UST tires are very heavy and are not like the regular version.
So, stay with the tubes and my current Kendas with great traction, lightweight and possible pinch flats? Or switch to a lighter than Kenda UST tire that hopefully grabs as well as the Kenda because I can run at a lower pressure, is compatible with the sealant, and eliminates pinch flats?
What do you recommend?
Thanks,
Matt Mantelli
I just read your gear review on Kenda's Nevegal Tires. I am currently running these tires with tubes in very wet and rooty conditions. I have found that I like them best at 30-32 psi. In fact, I love them coming from my Panaracer Fire XC Pros. But, I am starting to pinch flat.
I went out and bought a set of Mavic Crossmax ST UST wheels. I'm having a hard time deciding whether I should stay with my current tires with tubes, and up the pressure a little bit (to avoid the pinch flats), or to go tubeless. I have read that most folks run sealant with a UST set up. I have also read that Stans will eat a Kenda tire, but that Slime sealant will not. Finally I’ve heard that the Kenda Nevegal UST tires are very heavy and are not like the regular version.
So, stay with the tubes and my current Kendas with great traction, lightweight and possible pinch flats? Or switch to a lighter than Kenda UST tire that hopefully grabs as well as the Kenda because I can run at a lower pressure, is compatible with the sealant, and eliminates pinch flats?
What do you recommend?
Thanks,
Matt Mantelli
Matt:
We found ourselves in a very similar position two seasons back and came up with a compromise that may work for you (it worked for us).
Like you, we frequent trails with a lot of mud/ roots and didn't want to sacrifice traction in the name of pinch flat resistance. What we actually ended up doing was sticking with our tube-equipped Nevegals and simply added a little Slime sealant (the bicycle tube specific formula: www.slime.com/product/82/Tube-Sealant.html).
It allowed us to not only keep the standard Nevegals (with tubes) but it also allowed us to run the low air pressure we attributed the good traction to while putting an end to the pinch flats.
We recommend giving this method a shot before making any radical changes, as it’s certainly affordable with no real negative side effects.
If this doesn’t work for you, the next step we would recommend would be to add a little more air pressure to the current setup you’ve been running in small increments (perhaps 5psi at a time) until the pinch flatting ceases. If at that point, you feel your traction level has been compromised too severely, then and only then would we opt for the chunkier UST Nevegals, switch to tubeless and run Slime sealant.
We found ourselves in a very similar position two seasons back and came up with a compromise that may work for you (it worked for us).
Like you, we frequent trails with a lot of mud/ roots and didn't want to sacrifice traction in the name of pinch flat resistance. What we actually ended up doing was sticking with our tube-equipped Nevegals and simply added a little Slime sealant (the bicycle tube specific formula: www.slime.com/product/82/Tube-Sealant.html).
It allowed us to not only keep the standard Nevegals (with tubes) but it also allowed us to run the low air pressure we attributed the good traction to while putting an end to the pinch flats.
We recommend giving this method a shot before making any radical changes, as it’s certainly affordable with no real negative side effects.
If this doesn’t work for you, the next step we would recommend would be to add a little more air pressure to the current setup you’ve been running in small increments (perhaps 5psi at a time) until the pinch flatting ceases. If at that point, you feel your traction level has been compromised too severely, then and only then would we opt for the chunkier UST Nevegals, switch to tubeless and run Slime sealant.
