gabriel-mission9

@YoshimuraCycling: EXACTLY what?

@suspended-flesh: You get that the bearings are a press fit in the pedal body right? The same pedal body that the end cap screws into... The distance between the bearing outer races and the pedal body end cap doesnt change no matter how much the bearings or bushings wear. Thats why most pedal designs have the pedal end cap butt up hard against the bearing outer races. If the spring pushed against the pedal body and the inner race of the bearing, then slop would indeed be eliminated, but thats not the case for these pedals. So once again, what does the spring actually achieve other than allowing the bearings to drift out of their seats over time?

@Dogl0rd: It is mad. I had my meniscus reconstructed in my knee a couple of years ago. The hospital staff and physio all insisted ICE was the way. When I pressed them on it being incorrect as far as I understood, they changed their tune and said all ICE would do is decrease discomfort... I told them I didn't give a damn about short term discomfort over long term knee health and I was kinda surprised thats what they defaulted to. Their only excuse was that most people prefer less pain in the short term so thats what they suggest by default, without even hinting that there are other more effective methods if you are willing to put the effort in.

Kinda true for an air can, but the equivalent ride characteristics can be achieved with adjustments to pressure and a larger volume token, without clanging into the bottom out stops unnecessrily soon (which is arguably the issue that it seems you would be attempting to solve by fitting a shorter stroke shock, in a backwards kinda way) On a coil, if you are using a system designed to control bottom outs in order to give improved midstroke, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your setup in the first place. Shortening the travel available in order to bring the bottom out control in sooner is again a backwards soution. It really doesn't make any sense. It's just a gimmick loads of companies seem to be cynically (or simply ignorantly) buying into at the moment. And it is a big deal if arguably the largest bike review source going is buying into it. I probably am being too loud about it, but frankly I'm tired of the sport being held back by people selling and supporting nonsense, that simply wouldn't be gotten away with in any other big money sport with proper designers and engineers. MTB is living this weird dual life at the moment, where the equipment is far more expensive than in comparative sports, and far less well designed. It's basically got to the point where sub par products (be that creaking csu's, cracking frames, failing e-motors, etc etc) are not just common, they are the standard, and we still pay through the nose for them.

And arguments like the one given above are exactly why pinkbike needs to start explaining in plain english why short-stroking bikes is a pointless waste of money. Taking peoples money for these "upgrades" is not cool.

@justanotherusername: The extender piece looks to be about 20mm long. So assuming the original shock is 230x65 and this 20mm extender allows you to fit a 210x55, when the extender is taken into account the shock ends up essentially being a 230x55. So same e2e, shorter stroke. It's fucking dumb. Silly Bum