1a2bcio8

I really enjoyed that. You certainly look like you're mastering brakeless. I look forward to another showing further progression That spot looks interesting as well.

Yeah bros. Great feel and great riding

On it, fo' sure.

Those kenda tyres look quite interesting. Are they quite heavy/inch resistant? make that, are they quite pinch resistent?

Style Meister.

https://vimeo.com/33423644 That actually looks quite reasonable (the top one that is). Thanks for doing it.

Yeah fair point. I'm really not with it today. I mean I will just bide my time.

I'm 6'5" I think all of this is a bit too much for me to think about. I might just get another 4play and wait for things to hopefully change in the direction that I'm after... Thanks for all the advice though! And sorry if it's gone to waste.

oops...haha Sorry I'm after 680mm reach when my 4play is 660mm. So an extra 20mm from that. I can only blame how exhausting I'm finding this whole process...

Would one of you kind people please create me an image of this geo? Additionally, what wheel base would this give me? Head angle: 74.5 Head tube: 120mm Chainstay length: 380mm BB height: +20mm Seat Tube: 370mm (assuming the current 4play is the 250mm I measured) Reach from between the bb and top of the headtube I want to extend by 20mm from 660mm to 680mm (so I can drop down to a 70mm stem) Seat Tube angle: 73 Any further critique/advice on this geometry?

Ah man, this is a real lesson in learning... and much more difficult and slower to resolve than I was hoping Essentially I want a frame in order to get bar spins consistent more safely and learn nose manuals on. I'm intending to go back to inspired frames afterwards. The seat tube angle, I found out from Dave, is 73. Do you think that's a decent sort of slackness? I do hang 10s and would definitely like to consider geometry which would help them. Regarding bar spins I actually stood on the pedals and used a ruler to project the line of seat tube and saddle and it seemed pretty spot on regarding fitting between my knees when straight. I'm now considering dropping the seat tube by 70mm and relying on the seat post a bit more just so it doesn't interfere with tailwhips so much when I want to practice them. I'm going to accept what yourself and Ali says about the bb height and I'll keep it the same. I'm not keen on going in the other direction though because I don't like the idea of a more twitchy bike. I'd rather emphasise feeling in control over increased ability to spin. Perhaps I'm misjudging again though as I'm thinking of my experience of czar which had a crazy bb height and was difficult to land without tilting to the side. Then again the idea of easier 180s from manuals is very appealing... What are you running at the moment and is it working out? You're pretty tall yourself as I remember. Thinking about it some more, every time i increased my bar height I love the increased loopiness. You're saying I'd get more of this, in a sense, if I increased the bb height? I'm actually running 22:15 at the moment but I was thinking about trying 24:16 or even 15. I don't care for big gaps or sidehops and I think I can adapt with that to still do them even if smaller. I don't think I want to change the chainstay length though. It took me two months to get used to the shorter length on the 2011 4play. I've decided to keep the head tube at 120mm after all and extend the seat tube by only 130mm. That does look pretty ugly and, in fact, not very easy to ride with regards to some moves It turns out it's a 73 degree seat tube angle... That's exactly the sort of thing I'm after though; some way of overlaying my current geometry over the differences I want to employ. Thank you everyone for your input. It's very helpful and illustrative of just how little I actually know. It's helping me narrow down my thinking.

There's no room. I've used all the space on the steerer... thanks for the advice anyhow. I'm still struggling here. I've checked out the reach on Tarty but it's to the top of the head tube. I think I may just ignore the changes to the head tube and BB because they were the least important but the ones that mean I have to think about things I don't understand. The head angle and seat tube length were most important so I'm going to just stick with that to make life easy.

I'll do that, thanks. The thing with geo is that it also has a subjective dimension. Being that I'm significantly taller, with longer limbs than most people, it obviously changes the nature of my riding experience and needs. I appreciate the sense of the theory you put forward but the reality doesn't always work out that way according the variables of the person. But still, there's a good chance you're correct about my needs and I have to admit a position of ignorance relative to your own Thanks for taking the time help.

The wheel base is required on the form and, seemingly, this is how the reach is decided in relation to the other geometrical specifications. Unless I'm misunderstanding which is very possible. I'm wary about being sucked into your concept of what's important on a bike but when you said that it does make me concerned for 180s out of manuals which I love doing.

Hmmm, thinking about it, that's a fair point about the head tube. I've not been hugely fussed about aesthetics but it is nice to have a bike that looks okay. However, I thought the increased seat tube height might compensate the appearance. The relative increases would be proportional. Perhaps I'll think about limiting it to 30mm but, either way, I'm definitely increasing it so I'm not using so many stem stackers. Regarding the BB drop I'm just experimenting. I understand it helps with manuals and stability so I'd like to try it out. Also it should put me a bit more upright which I'm after because I've always been at risk with lower back trouble because of my height. I've also just noticed on the Marino geometry form that I need to include a seat tube angle... Does anyone know what the 4play seat tube angle is? It's not on the tech specifications on the site.

Don't like the geometry, Ali?

So I'm wanting to order a new frame today from Marino and experiment with some geometry. The trouble is I'm very unsure about how to measure everything up appropriately regarding how changes in one area effect another area. My template is the Inspired 4play from which I am making some amendments. Chainstay: 380mm (same) Bottom Bracket: +15mm (-5mm) Head Tube: 74.5 I'm fairly confident with the above but I don't know how to relate it to the wheelbase in order to increase the reach by 30mm so that if I change from a 90mm stem to a 70mm stem (maybe even 50mm) I don't end up with a cramped front end. Furthermore, I'm also planning to increase the seat tube length by 150mm. I measured the 4play as aprox. 250mm from the centre of the BB to the very top of the tube beyond the centre with which the top tube connects to it. Is this the correct method of measurement? Finally I want to increase the head tube height from 120mm to 180mm. Does this and the seat tube difference alter the way in which the rest of the geometry needs to be calculated? I'm extremely ignorant about these matters so any help would be really appreciated. Thanks.

I'm totally in awe of that style. I've never seen so much flow on a trials bike. And nice to see some tunage I like

I seriously suggest looking up trigger points which are areas of muscle that knot and cause the muscle to spasm which gives rise to referred pain; pain that is in a separate area to the area (the trigger point) that is causing it. They are established as constituting a significant amount of muscle related pain arising from trauma and/or overuse; often pain that is seemingly the symptom of other causes. You simply need to find the appropriate trigger point/s and massage it/them for about 1 minute. You don't need a professional therapist. It's possible that you might get rid of your pain after one massage; which has happened to myself. Leaving it to sort itself out is obviously an option but it might be a slower option and one that never totally resolves by itself. I've had multiple trigger points in my legs and feet from over training in running that caused referred pain in my feet, ankles, groin, knees and hips.

It sounds like you've probably overdone it. Taking only 6 weeks to reach 10 miles, unless you used to be adept and experienced with running, is possibly a bit too much to ask of the body. Also, running every day, again whilst lacking experience, is not good for the body. You may have brought about trigger points; these can occur as a means of the bodies self-defence against overuse. Check out the online resources (or the trigger point therapy workbook) about these and if it is trigger points you may be able to get rid of the problem instantly or very quickly. Alternatively you may have caused damage to your tendons or ligaments which adapt and repair at a much slower rate to muscles and which are put under a lot of stress by running. This is a key reason to train slowly. An ideal rate of progression is about around 10% more time spent running each week rather than aiming to increase your distance by, say, 10% each week. I'd drop back down to a 30-40 min run time and progress according to time if I were you. It could also be your running stance which is causing you problems. You can find out about your stance at a running shop.

The answer follows from how we decide to define it given that mathematics is our construct. It's only really problematic if we think that mathematics, in some sense, exists independently of us and is intimately and only an expression of the physical world. If that were the case then there could only be one answer which has to accord with the actual reality of the physical world. Abstract mathematics would define it in either sense (equalling 1 or less than 1) and investigate the logical consequences of applying it within varying systems.

The hexigan, I think it's called, at between 12-12.30 See you then!

One other thing. Love is what allows you to have control! It's such a bad myth of our culture that love is considered a passive event that just happens to us, i.e. "we fall in love". Love is the active choice to feel and act beyond yourself. Only when you are not obsessed with yourself but concerned with others can you have control over yourself.

Firstly, I really think your idea of perfectionism as implying any kind of argument against the potential for change in Africa is not valid. If that's what is still meant or are we on a tangent? Anyway, we're meaning two separate things as you point out. I'm referring to the nature which is shared between human beings and you're referring to the nature which is more contextually relative. In your case, the type of perfectionism you refer to bears no impact on the chance for change in Africa. Just because food seems like the best thing in the world to somebody who is starving doesn't say anything about the possibility of them creating a situation wherein they have food. It doesn't inescapably indicate the lack of realism about the potential for change. It's not that one of us is right or wrong about how we want to apply the terms of perfectionism. They are both valid because words are meaningless until they are applied to contexts whereupon they become qualified. The point is which ones when applied to the problem of Africa indicate concerns about our way of thinking about it? I think it's the idea of perfectionism in terms of utopia that is problematic and unrealistic and not your more subjective and relativistic, valid within it self, use of word. I get what you're saying about the depression. You're aiming it at me in particular. The trouble is that previously I was reacting mostly with anger. I remember feeling so pissed off with all my friends who just wanted to talk about superficial nonsense when there were much more pressing matters at hand. The problems of the world seemed so insoluble and therefore depressing. It's been years since that sort of thing has caused me depression and I react more with concern and motivation about these sorts of problems. I've also found out that my mental health problems have been far more grounded in my biology than was previously understood so I'm not an entirely fair example. Importantly though I've realised that working on one's self is the foundation for helping other. And from this position I can tell you that you can make movements that can begin to cut away your selfishness, leaving more room for more wholesome feelings. Reacting with compassion and understanding is an option to the problems of the world and is healthy. We are not stuck with a certain degree of love and a certain degree of greed but they grow or diminish according to the way we work (or don't work) upon ourselves. I strongly feel that saying you are stuck with set degrees of feelings is seriously wrong. Otherwise what would be the point in trying to work through relationships or attending psycho-therapies? Through meditation and mindfulness I have experienced intense feeling of universal and infinite love. This is somewhat embarrassing to admit but I'll admit it anyway because it is the sanest and happiest I've ever felt. It revealed to me what constituted sanity, serenity and happiness and over the years I feel that I've made a greater movement toward this and I know others that have done the same and more so than myself. My ability to articulate myself is leaving me. I'm not overly keen with the coherence of some of this response but meh.

Okey doke One thing about being a "robot" though We're very conditioned by our environment. It happens to us at a stage when we can offer little resistance to it. What's worse in the modern era is that technology (internet, television, etc.) makes our conditioning in certain directions, by wealthy minority groups, significantly easier and it is, after all, the wealthy that are best placed to afford advertising and clever advertising at that. Kids in front of the television are simply sponges; they lack a critical faculty to understand how they might be being manipulated. Children are pushed into a 'having' mentality which is so emphasised that it becomes of central importance even if being a human being requires something deeper in order to be really satisfied and content. Even formal education doesn't really promote critical thinking until we're at university and even then it tends to be narrow and we won't touch on certain presuppositions or fully connect the dots between ideas and events. Narrow specialisation is the trend at universities. So even in adulthood our critical faculties end up either limited or work in narrow margins meaning certain ideas are always taken as self-evident or sacrosanct. And when are we ever told that we should be critical of authority or critical of our trends? Why aren't we taught about the nature of history as reflecting the changing nature of humanity that can and has gone in directions that are healthier? Why aren't we taught about what happiness is? How it might be achieved? Essentially we're very vulnerable to blindly adopting ideas that we take to be our own because they either came to us at a point where we were generally unaware or because, despite having critical skills, we don't apply them to certain areas of our thinking. This is compacted by the fact that when lots of other people behave or belief in the same way you are even less likely to be critical about those norms. This is what is meant by being a robot really. It's not so much a conspiracy but just a consequence of the nature of people being vulnerable alongside people being greedy. We are products of our environment and at present our environment is centred on greed. Importantly though, this greed is insane because is contradicts our actual nature. You may disagree about universal compassion and love being more in line with who we are and what we need but I don't think anyone will deny that the instinct toward survival is an inherent part of who we are. Yet our present conditioning toward greed, which constitutes shiny things, totally denies our need toward survival. We are wrecking our environment to the extent that even our lives are in danger. This is insanity because we are not living in accord with who we are. I also think it's insane not be living in accord with our love and compassion. They are in equal need to survival and survival without them isn't really living. No doubt may will disagree with me but who will consider that perhaps it's their conditioning and not who they really are that is telling them that? Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you JD and don't feel that you have to respond. I only aim my arguments at you because you're more rational and coherent than most. I also think you have a kind of openness that means my words won't be like a bird flying into a closed window. I'm also still at home unwell and this shizzle helps keep my mind sharp-ish when I haven't got the energy to study.