aener

TGS, at it's core, is boring. An extremely exclusive class of people, however, make it an absolute pleasure to watch. I count four.

This and GET2 illustrate my lament perfectly. Everything that is in there and now absent are what I lust after. I know the old-school riders generally tend to say the golden era of trials was a bit before this, but for an 06 starter, this remains the sport's peak for me. Desperately wish I hadn't lost my GET2.

Eugh. Washers on the outside of the dropout (between dropout and axle washers) would be your best bet, otherwise you're getting a very small contact surface between axle and dropout. I hate trans-generational issues like this.

Any of the axle bolt washers should do you fine. There will be some designed for M10 bolts, but they'll be very clearly labelled (and I think more expensive), so just read the description and all will be well. I can 100% vouch for the Trialtech, Monty, Try-All and Echo as I just looked on the list. Any of those would be fine, and just an M6 bolt, yes. You won't need to touch the bearings unless you know they're on the way out/already dead. Don't bother opening it up just to have a look If you do need to get at the bearings, it'll just be a case of tapping one end of the axle with a mallet. Don't use a hammer - alloy axle ends fold over quite easily and you won't be able to get a bolt in it. If you don't have a wood/rubber mallet, put a piece of wood over the end of the axle and tap lightly, adding force until it shifts. Tapping it will push the opposite bearing out. To get it back in, just do the reverse. You'll need to find a ring of something hard that lines up with the outer edge of the bearing. Don't hit the middle - it'll stress the bearings internals. If you can't get it completely settled in where it was because your hitting implement doesn't fit, if it's close enough to get the hub inside the forks just slide it in and use the axle bolts to press the bearings in the rest of the way. It's not ideal as this will press on the middle of the bearing like I just told you not to, but if it's done by a gentle bolt instead of a mallet impact, and not done often, it shouldn't have too much effect.

I might be wrong but I remember those hubs being bolt-in hubs. It's got a Hope skewer in it so it's clearly not the original setup! Take the skewer out, and if there's threads inside the axle you just need a pair of standard M6 bolts and axle-washers. (NOT the ones you've linked to - they're for something else.) I like the Monty ones because the serrations feel like they help. I think it's pure placebo, but if it provides comfort I'll take it The Trialtech, Try-All or Echos would all work too, if your axle has the internal threads I suspect it does.

I'm pretty certain you don't, but I'd love you to mean this one: The head-angle alone... I don't know the geo of them, but from pictures they look a good deal longer than the Hawyes, even with what looks like shorter chainstays, so I'd say maybe they weren't all that streety? More aimed at competition riding of the era?

It feels like we've reached an impasse caused be you isolating one moral dilemma and me considering them in sum. You are arguing that this one action runs against ethics. I'm arguing that whilst it might run against ethics, so does everything else we do. (Edit: which is how environmentalism got dragged into this, since that appeared to have caused some confusion.) I've a feeling we actually agree with each other, but we're talking about different things and not really realising it. I hadn't looked into actual Red Bull sponsored athletes, and there is definitely something amiss with someone touting health being on Red Bull, but I guess "getting by" is a major barrier to ethical issues (the ones with effects you don't personally see, anyway. The trolley problem etc are a different category).

In using it, I would be scared of the disc mount container cracking/snapping off. Presumably it's aluminium? I know modelling is more effective than instinctive worry, but that looks a mighty thin wall for the forces involved in front-gaps etc. (26" tyres OD leverage over... 70mm diameter stopping?) Edit: Just remembered cranks... They have more meat around them, but I guess if that can mange this could too if you do it right. Also, to be easy enough to separate that it would just slide out, wouldn't that have the smallest amount of play and feel the same as pad-rock? Or are you envisaging it being a tight fit that requires a tool to separate the two parts?

Even if you don't consider it as linked, the whole topic of discussion is ethics and morality. Taking part in a sport might not directly affect the environment, but the creating of the equipment you use does. (In this case, sponsor companies.) It's a separate issue to the one you asked about, but it's effectively the same question coming from a different origin. We can think of things like this as being morally dubious, but it's impossible for one creature to live without having at least some negative impact on others. Vegans try to minimise this, but living in concrete cities, brick houses, using electricity... Environmental activists try to minimise it, but they might print protest banners on paper made from cut down trees using oil-based paint. The best we can do is try to minimise our negative impacts as much as possible, but all that will do is slow down the march toward our inevitable self-inflicted doom. Essentially, there's too many of us to be able to live squarely within the limits of what we consider moral. WAY too many. But reducing the human population by at least 50% is frowned upon by the same morals.

With Monster, it is the same, yes. But no cigarette company hosts Rampage or all the various BMX events and all the other stuff they do. When I said that, I wasn't meaning keeping various sportspeople able to ride full-time, I meant the hosting events etc. (The difference between Tarty sponsoring a rider and putting on TartyDays... if the trials niche wasn't so useless that they chose to not take advantage of people doing nice things for them.) The point of stigma, I agree it could happen and hope it does, but specifically in skating and BMX, clips of people skinning/sparking up isn't rare at all. It's never contractually demanded, but doing it of their own volition for "atmosphere" or editing purposes is potentially even worse.

But buying a drink is a personal choice. Sure, they might not have thought to if they didn't see a certain video or attend a certain event, but without Red Bull supporting them, a lot of the less socially accepted sports wouldn't be anywhere near where they are right now. They're a bit like the Church. What they do provides platforms for good people to do good things, and growing communities and providing mindsets that let people feel good about themselves or more secure of their place in the world, but the way they support themselves is generally harmful to the people being helped by their outward appearance. I'm not saying we should all start worshipping aluminium cans as a religious symbol, but I do think a reasonable parallel can be drawn. Religion in moderation can manifest itself as a force for good, but fanatics are dangerous. A can of Red Bull here and there will likely have no effect on the drinker, but in buying them they support the platform that presents them with something to enjoy or aspire to. Oh man... I just realised I'm comparing one business to another business known for deluding people, thinking it was a bit of a stretch. But they tell people their drink will give you wings! What fun. <Rusevelt mode>I wonder if 2019 will be the year we see the Crimson Bull logo appearing in the Vatican</Rusevelt mode> Christians know this, and they don't like it: http://www.gracebfc.com/content.cfm?id=151&blog_id=4

I think I consider an athlete as someone who spends the time other people are at work practising in their sport. Especially if it provides their income, and doubly so if they also actively engaging in competitions. So: I am a web developer who also rides. Not an athlete. Josh Leech is a welder/fabricator who also rides. Not an athlete. Your mate's dad is an accountant and plays Sunday league football. Not an athlete. Professional footballers who don't have a part time job or whatever and is regular competition with other teams. Athletes. Kriss Kyle, paid a salary (presumably) "to ride" and enters comps. Athlete. Danny Hart, as above. Athlete. Jack Carthy, as above. Athlete. Danny Mac, I guess also gets a salary, but doesn't enter competitions and also earns money from shows etc. The fact that his income is derived from his sport puts him in the athlete category for me. Ali - I think I'm saying that in my books you just about qualify as an athlete Supplementing income with another job doesn't make them not athletes - it's the proportion of time engaged in high-level practice that does it for me. (Which raises the category of "rich kid who doesn't want a job and has the financial backing to be able to just ride all the time, but never gets that good". To me, not an athlete. I guess you require all of the above, and to also be of at least above-average ability in the sport. But it's still a grey term.)

Ooops. Really should've done my research first, I guess

To clarify, I was referring specifically to extreme-sports-people in hospital due to sugar vs extreme-sports-people in hospital due to lack of helmet, since that was the group of people in question. Apologies if that wasn't clear. First line: I think in any other circle of athlete that would probably be true, but I don't think extreme sports is quite the same. The amount of top tier skaters and BMXers whom appear to glorify alcohol and various things sold to be inhaled (smoke or steam), takeaways... I feel like they're definitely less fussed about prime health than track/field athletes. If they're not overly concerned about being healthy and certainly don't promote healthy lifestyles, I don't think it's the same. Still not good, but not the same. Second line: definitely true, but one interesting point specifically about sugar; not absolute, but studies have found it in many cases more addictive than cocaine. On a separate note, now that I've been thinking about this for a little bit, I've come to realise I don't associate the sponsor logos in videos with the product. When Alex D put out that first video on Monster, I only thought in terms of the BMX scene now seeing him as being on that level. The prestige, if you will. As other long-term riders rather than average members of the public, does this happen for you? Much like what Luke said, but I don't even get it with Monster, even though they don't do the things that Red Bull do.

There is a valid argument to this, but "immoral" is a strong word. I personally think it's important to use terms of an appropriate strength otherwise we lose points of reference. (If everything with a less than neutral effect on your body gets the headline "Substance X will kill you!" then we need a separate term for the category of things that genuinely will . Read: sugar versus cyanide. Both true, but very different.) I understand why we have clickbait, but if you extrapolate from where we were to where we are now, Orwell's vision of NewSpeak doesn't seem so outlandish any more. It's definitely an ethical grey area, but I'd say they're doing less damage overall than the far, far greater number of amateur, semi- and pro riders that send out the image that it's Ok to ride with no helmet. I have no statistics, but I'd put money on more extreme sports hospital cases being due to unprotected head injuries than excess caffeine/sugar. The really upsetting question that I definitely don't like thinking about because I love watching them is whether high level riders publishing videos or photo's is damaging in itself. If it's possibly the riders' fault that some kid they've never met is pounding four Monsters a day (something anyone living in the modern era unquestionably understands as "a bad thing") and gets hospitalised, it's far more their fault for every rider/skater/climber etc. for inspiring other people to try challenging things. If everyone lived in isolated bubbles where they'd never seen riding videos, they'd probably never have started riding, and if they did they definitely wouldn't push it to the extremes they do. The bar is constantly raising with each generation of riders doing bigger/techer/harder things than the previous, so anyone watching these videos aspires to them. At some point the inevitable has to happen and they get injured. Is it the pro riders' fault for putting out media that the masses try to emulate? Yes, this is a slightly different scope of question, but it's related in that sometimes you have to trust the end user not to be a complete f**king moron. Whether you actually do or not, outwardly giving the appearance of endorsing a harmful product is not a good thing, but if a prime role model (no smoking, law abiding, helmet wearing, drives an EV, donates 30% of their income to charity, is a heart surgeon in their spare time etc.) doesn't take it, the likelihood that some chain-smoking scumbag who's only in it for the money will get it instead. In the capitalist society we have, it's a given that companies will exploit people being stupid. I drink them (increasingly little, but still do), so someone choosing not to won't remove the issue, but it will remove the availability of them earning a living from doing what they're good at. Yes, it would be best if the best riders didn't have energy drink sponsors, but then where do you draw the line? If they're going to be sponsored... Practically every company has some bad aspects, whether that's exploiting child factory workers, or using an ethical workforce but still contributing to global warming, or even going to great lengths to be ethical and carbon neutral but then the CEO is misogynistic... (I jest, but yeah.) As with stoicism, the absolute perfect pro rider would be as good as they are and endorse no companies at all. Everyone unfortunate enough to actually exist can only strive to come as close to it as they can, forever doomed to fall short. It's a very interesting question with no satisfying answers save cultural revolution

Add the weight. My [debatable] reasoning: The overlap of people looking to save every gram possible and front-disc users is almost non-existent overall, and even smaller when discussing not-20" riders. If weight's their priority, they'd also be better served not using a disc anyway. If you're looking at ~450g + disc brake, that's already a good bit more than ~500g (existing carbon forks) + rim brake. If you were down in the region of a 350g fork + disk brake it might be worth trying to compete, but discs are so much heavier than rim brakes there's almost no point trying. Adding 20g will have almost no impact on the people who would consider buying this product, but having to set a brake back up every time you want to get in the car would. (If I was in the market for a product like this, finding out I had to do that would instantly make me decide against it.)

Excellent riding! Just what we need to fuel motivation through the winter months

Even crank bolts? I like mine for the same reason. All 5mm or 8mm. Still carry a full set though Edit: I just realised my snail cam bolts are 4mm. I'm such a poser

I've been curious about the feeling of the bars since I first saw them. For times when you're in an upright position I can understand what you mean. When I started getting serious about riding I got some Monty bars and suddenly got a lot better quite quickly - I put this largely down to them being narrower and placing wrists at very close to shoulder width, making transfer of power easier. (How true that is, I have no idea, but it's what I told myself and I'm Ok with that ) The issue I foresee is when you get into the more "forced" positions that you're only in for very short times. Tucking in a sidehop. Leaning over the front in a hook. Hanging over the back wheel at the limit of your tap height. These kinds of positions require significant flexibility in wrist positioning and wrists have a far greater range of motion in pitch vs roll, and if you need to go even further than the joint flexibility allows, you palms can roll forwards or backwards around the bar. Most of trials is up/down or forwards/backwards. My instinct is that whilst changing to a vertical wrist orientation might be more ergonomic, and better for natural posture (and possibly power transfer as a result?) in resting or balancing positions, your hand positioning being restricted in the pitch axis would heavily diminish your manoeuvrability. Have you found anything like this in your test rides? Also, specific to sidehops, does your forearm hit on the "crossbar"? I imagine not because you don't on a mod stem, but it's a big bar in a place there isn't one so who knows For all the reasons you mentioned, it makes perfect sense to have them on roadies. I'm kind of surprised they're not more common on thoroughbred XC bikes too. But - and I know precious little about health and fitness - they're aerobic sports where all that kind of breathing stuff makes a bigger difference. I know sections are taxing, but I think trials riding would come squarely under anaerobic? Which would make the benefits... not really applicable? I'm not poo-pooing - I can't see myself running the bars or fork, but these are genuine questions and thoughts. I'm very interested in the difference these parts would make. Some of them feel a little like innovation for innovation's sake to me, but then I guess I'm just really not your target market. (Again - that's not to say I'm not glad you're doing it.) How about a silent freehub that can handle trials torques, ideally with King/Hope ish number of engagements (or equivalent thereof)? Sprags slip and clutches explode. Been racking my brains for years with threads and splines and all sorts, but I guess there's a reason said hub doesn't already exist!

Ahhh. Makes sense. I didn't forget about the whole FFW thing. Honest. I really need to ride with other people more often.

I don't know how you personally use them, and granted I'm hardly an experienced user, but whenever I've used chop-sticks there's been two of them. Edit: More seriously - what's the difference between your Kicker Sprocket and... just running two sprockets? I appreciate the theoretical benefit of the ultra-wide base spreading the force much more, but with the 5-7mm based sprockets already don't really dig into the shell like old sprockets did, and it has the big disadvantage of tooth-quantity-flexibility. Edit 2: Also - holy machining costs, Batman! (I imagine.) And is it for people willing to run a chain long enough for the larger sprocket and taking up slack with a sprung tensioner on the small one, adjusting the alignment each time? (Or even a full mech, I guess.) Asking through genuine interest as I experimented with this a few years ago. On a 20" wheel I had a 22t up front, and a 15t and 11t on the rear. The two chainstay lengths were very, very close and one-link-length apart so I just used quick-links to add and remove as desired (enclosed dropouts with no tensioner). Didn't find it that useful in the end, and it added weight, and sacrificed chainline (not that either of those are real issues on my type of bike). It somehow just made the bike feel really weird, so I didn't try it for long at all.

First of his videos I've legitimately enjoyed. Always admired the riding but never really clicked with him. That was just flat out cool the whole way through (except for that stupid bench footplant line, obviously).

I was going to call you out on that - I thought you were better than that - but when drawing it out I realised that 3x created some pretty insane angles and assumed you'd tried that and switched down to 2x 3x3x is The One unless there's specific reasons not to. (I have a 2x2x front wheel because most companies don't make spokes long enough for 3x on such a tiny hub flange and relatively large ERD ((single wall 20")) ).

Would it screw with the lengths too much if you staggered them the opposite way? Latecross style. I know it leaves the seam exposed so getting the bob out might be a challenge, but probably nothing smashing it against the floor won't sort That would put your opposite side spokes together, which might make the build easier, And you'd be able to offset the sides a bit more normally. Think this is how roadies group their spokes, right? And they've got shit tonnes of money to pour into R&D Super pro image below to illustrate. Ignore the magenta dots - they were just a rough as hell spacing thing I forgot to remove. Edit: Just realised that if you have zero offset rims you could get super cheeky and push the trailing spokes back by one hole. Both sides of trailing spokes would then be on the "wrong side hole", but it would even out the tension over the circumference a little. So the pattern going clockwise from the valve hole would be: Green Light Blue Light Red Green Dark Blue Dark Red [repeat]

I've wondered this for years. Kudos for following through on it!