aener

It's bloody close. And very hard to draw a conclusion because of the different contexts, angles, bikes and posture, but I think I need to change my opinion above if the one above is current comp rider peaks (I'm so out of touch it hurts). Even if Joacim's above doesn't match the height, the repeatability I mentioned before is a huge factor, but the question was explicitly about size, not control. That just wouldn't be a fair fight

Remember that Jack wasn't doing that in a way of beating a sidehop height, he was just getting up it. just getting up it It's hardly "shit".

I might be compromised because I grew up on TGS bikes, but comp bikes feel even more specific to me. By quite a margin.

Strictly sidehop related: I've not measured them, but the biggest street sidehops I've ever seen (the walls thereof, not them actually happening) are a few of Damon's in Leeds. I think some of Bersha's probably rival them, but I've never been at those walls so less familiar. Bumped into Carthy at Shipley the other week and he did one that was definitely higher overall, but it's tricky to say if it's actually "bigger" because of the rounded edges and setting up on a little knobble in the floor for a bit extra bounce etc. I'd say it's a very close match, with the main difference being repeatability. If they duked it out and ended up being exactly the same height limit, the comp rider would get it more consistently. My instinct is that the comp riders are going slightly bigger now. Edit: Actually, I just remembered some of those Matt Awkwright was doing around Preston/Blackburn. Further debate required.

It's a blurry line, and I have to say I don't think it matters much. That's how a lot of people ride them, but if someone wants to ride it exclusively in skateparks or on dirt jumps, why not? It's a similar distinction to the street/flatland BMX threshold. There will always be people just slightly to one side of the line riding a frame designed for the other, just because they're comfy on it. Edit: Matthias Dandois. That's who I was thinking of when I wrote that. To my personal taste, there would be a bit more "trialsy" content, but it's presumably how he wants to ride it so whatever Some of the best fun I've had was riding my home-made brakeless mod down Gisburn's Hully Gully.

Gosh. That was pretty mega I don't know quite what it is about his style/line choice but on five separate occasions in that video I thought he was going for something which he then didn't, so I thought he'd f**ked it up, but then instead of bailing out he did something totally different. Really weirded me out until rewatching it knowing what to expect!

Edit: Eugh. Whatever. Disagree but go ahead.

Absolute machine. In your next video, can we see you try that last line again but instead of hopping down every step, hop straight from the top step to the bottom one and go up? That would be saucy! Have to land very sideways though, so only if you build good wheels

Mid-gap90-crankflip got me all kinds of excited What's the general feel on "street trials" these days? I'm finding in most videos that I'm enjoying less of them now that tropes have had time to emerge. The bits I enjoy are the bits where they're doing something new/novel. His halfcab-whips and a bunch of tech nastiness are the good bits, but there seems to be an obligation for "big street riders" to do the biggest tyre-tap possible. Is that just the modern equivalent to a big dropgap when TGS reigned supreme? Also love the footjam whip to fakie nose manual. I first saw it in Jack Heard's video so it's not "him making new stuff" as I mentioned above, but I guess it's fresh enough and still uncommon enough that it's fine And why don't people smile? From facial expressions it seems that riding is almost all about conquest rather than having fun. Landing most of those lines would have me grinning myself giddy. Particularly the crankflip one. Just to emphasise and positively reinforce that kind of behaviour.

Fair. I only catch a very few bits of the skate scene, so maybe I only catch the "touristy bits".

I've been in this camp since after Way Back Home. My rule of thumb now is approximately: if you're sponsored by an energy drink company and produce videos of an extreme sport, if it's Monster it's a video of the sport for people who do the sport, if it's Red Bull it's a video of the sport for people that don't. Big examples being Dan Lacey and Dakota Roche vs Kriss Kyle and later Danny Mac/this video. Are any trials riders with Monster these days? I don't recall seeing any since Hegedus was years ago. Edit: To clarify before people misinterpret my admittedly ambiguous wording - I'm not shitting on the riding in any Red Bull videos. Genuinely cream of the crop, whether it's to your taste or not and putting aside the "it was a bit sketchy" etc.

To clarify: I'm enjoying riding, just not filming. Thanks

It was mentioned that I should start filming another video, so I did, but I'm just really not enjoying it. Here's what I've filmed before I decided to stop. It's somewhat a mish-mash of half-baked effort, but I guess that's just who I am now!

That was ace

Don't normally post in here but too bloody chuffed on the luck I got out of a nasty ass burled branch I picked up off the street just now! (Goop in crevices is unset pastewax because I'm a dumb-dumb.)

I managed to just about wedge a bit of bar with a very square edge in from the other side and just smacked it. Took some [careful] doing and there's a couple of marks on the inside of the hubshell, but none where the bearings sit. Just be sure to do a couple of hits at 12'o'clock, then at 6, then at 3, then at 9 on the rim and repeat. The wonkier it gets the less likely it is to come out without doing damage/at all, and that'll keep it pretty flat. Edit: My bar was 10mm round stock. When the edge folded over I just nipped it back with a file. Going slightly past square might help, but I was getting results with how it was and didn't want to change

Wow. I went totally the other way. Gave it a couple of times through and just felt it didn't have the "grit factor" and was a bit soft/lacking, which was the reason it didn't work for me - in my head that's what they were about. Interesting difference of perspective that it rang harder for you than the older ones (I understand still not actually "hard" though).

I'll confess I've never been more than an occasional casual listener of theirs - enjoyed the sound but would never single them out in a "What bands do you like?" conversation - but I got very little from it compared to the older ones. I've skipped a few out since the last one I heard though, so I was wondering if you might think it's a kind of thing you need leading into gradually as their sound changed over the years/albums? Like high BB - go straight from +20 stocks to the +70 HiFi and everyone hates it, but if you nudge it up by 10mm each year, people love it because it wasn't a shock to what they expect Slipknot to sound like. Or do I just not like it?

That "decade" to fakie noz in the flatbank... Also love the weirdness of trials riders consistently preferring to do things the other way. Pretty sure those barspins are what's considered "oppo" in the BMX, and the whips definitely are. I wonder what it is that makes such a trend to gravitate toward spinning/tricks the other way to the usual on a slightly different type of bike.

What tugs have you got currently? If it's the Gussets or something similar then I feel your pain. Been there. They're too big - might be fine for dirt-jumper dropouts but not us. Even the smaller ones like the Trialtechs are too big sometimes. I solved this on previous bikes I've had by doing exactly what you're suggesting, and a couple of times the other way around by making a bodge-fix spacer to go between the back of the dropouts and the tug plate, but I definitely wouldn't recommend that. It works in a pinch but it's insanely frustrating and not exactly what you'd call secure. Another option would be a half-link, but I'd definitely recommend playing around with tug options before resorting to that. They stretch a lot which sucks for continuity, but also often leads to being more snap happy. I've not personally had such issues with them - the stretching was enough to put me off - but I know plenty of people who have. Post a picture of the rear end of your bike so we can see the dropouts and brake mounts in the same shot, and a closeup of the dropout arrangement and we might be able to give better advice on exactly what you might be able to try

Re-bar was just an example. All the tools used to make the stone stuff. To work stone as efficiently as that, they must be stronger than stone. Things like that. And if they have access to materials like that, I find it very difficult to believe they wouldn't use it in their settlements and infrastructure. If they gathered what they could in the face of a cataclysmic event, there would still be some bits left over. Maybe they all got blown out into the ocean How would any life survive that? The advanced race might have gone underground, or left the planet altogether even because otherwise they surely would've come back out after it settled down, but what about the lemurs, and spiders, and hamsters and minnows? They didn't get nuclear bunkers. The dinosaurs died off as part of a mass extinction event, but we find their bones all over the place. There must have been entire families of species that got wiped out in whatever even drove The Civilisation away, so where are all of their bones that suddenly stop appearing around 13k years ago? I stumbled upon this the other day and thought it would float your boat. They present an extremely one-sided discussion, but there's one absolutely concrete, unavoidable issue. These temples were 100% cut from bedrock and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste material had to be removed, but there's no sign of it anywhere in the vicinity. Putting aside all other questions raised about it - what the f**k?! That's either an absolute mindf**k, or they transported many pyramids worth of waste material for many, many miles, just so it wouldn't be near their temples. Quite a lot of videos are popping up about things in India recently. One of particular likely interest to you is enormous stone temple columns that look extremely suspiciously like they were cut on a lathe. Seems strange that other things get so focused on, and others ignored. If anything, this in the video is Petra on 'roids, but Petra is way more famous in the west. (Not bashing on Petra - totally worth it's salt.) I've known about it for a long time so it doesn't have the same kapow for me right now, but Angkor, too. The Wat was only one part of it. Totally crazy stuff, though less unexplainable than some of the other places.

Another question that would raise for me is that there is no evidence of the civilization or tools they used - presumably they would have extremely durable materials for building etc... re-bar, cutters, whatever - but we do have examples of the stonework they produced. I would have thought anything that can wipe every single trace of them off the face of the planet would be more than enough to destroy some bits of granite already made weaker by having been worked, and especially any of the ones from softer stone. I actually find ancient aliens visiting, using their tech for whatever reason, and then withdrawing having never put down permanent roots leaving no trace of having been here more likely, thinking on it. Note that this isn't me jumping on the bandwagon. I'm just promoting the discussion rather than the namecalling. I've argued on your side often enough, so I hope you can see this is a question/point of thought, not a slam.

An interesting distinction I've heard made a lot of times. Who says you couldn't get skilled slaves? That's what we all are even today, after all. We just have the luxury of choosing our whipmaster. (Edit: Ok - most of us. There's a handful of crazies out there who enjoy going to work and would do it by choice.)

Oh. I think I bought mine off Rich Pearson, and at the time he said it was Ali's before his. Honestly... you think you know a booster, and then...