Fun on purpose.

This bike is fun.  Trek/Fisher Stache 8

I bet most of us, when we really get down to it, ride because it is fun.  And unless you are truly driven or are in this for cash or acclaim, when it stops being fun we stop riding.  So here is a bike that, according to the builder, is all about 'fun'.

A 29er hardtail with a twist here...120mm fork with 51mm (G2) offset, 68.6* HT angle 72* ST angle, 17.5" stays, dropper post ready, 2.3 tires stock.  Long TT, long-ish stem.  Typical 2x10 XC gearing.  SO what is it?  AM hard tail?  No...not short enough or burly enough.  XC racer?  No, too heavy with that dropper post and big tires plus the HT angle...no, not an XC racer.  Endurance bike?  Well kinda over qualified for that too.  SO what is it?

Just a fun bike to ride in the way that maybe 90% of the people that do ride, ride.  That being, out with the gang, on the trail, up the hills, down the hills, across town, over the horizon, maybe fast, maybe not fast, checking Strava, checking in to life, checking out of life.

Why is this bike so different then, so 'more fun'?  Here is what I think.

• The relaxed HT angle and overall weight distribution works to keep YOU relaxed and smiling.  You are off the front wheel, back in the center of the bike.  So while this is against you in some cases, like steep seated climbs up a switchback, it is for you most all the other 99.9% of the rides. This is the first time I have been...wait...the second time I have been impressed with a bike that had a 51mm offset fork on it on purpose; this G2 Trek and an Ibis Ripley.
• It loves to just play down the trail, bopping off everything, taking rougher lines just for fun, whatever.  Speed feels really good on this, keeping in mind the hardtail limitations.  
• Dropper post.  Man, those things make a bike into a whole new animal and let you do things with your weight balance that a normal post will not do (unless you stop and drop, raise, drop raise, etc)
• Fattish tires.  More rubber is more gooder on trail rides.
• 120mm of travel and a 17.5" CS length.  Just right for anything short of full on BC log drops and yet you can sit and spin along, having some hope of getting up the steeps without needing to perch on the nose of a faux leather, ti railed suppository.
• The vibe is right.  Yeah it all just comes together to not be the 'nth' degree of anything but the meat of everything we like about riding.  In fact the closest thing to this I have felt in an FS is that Ripley 29er, but that was just a brief impression.
• No pretense of being all serious.  Trek seemed to get it marketing wise and I think riders will respond once they stop obsessing over perceived needs like under 17" CS lengths and 140mm forks on hardtails, and conversely, steeper than required 71+* HT angles and bike set-ups that only feel really good when we are trying to go very fast uphill or on some smooth course.

Like anything, this simple but slightly unique 29er is not for everyone but I really came to appreciate it and I had to think to myself that it was, more often than not, more fun to ride on any given day than many other bikes I have hanging around the garage.  And that was quite interesting to me, at least.  

Maybe to you as well.

And if I was to go out and order a custom bike right now, I would take the specs of this Stache 8 and have it rendered in Ti just for kicks.  And then I would ride and smile, having fun.

The long and short of it.

One of the oft debated topics for MTB set up is crank length.  Typical lengths range from 170mm long to 180mm long, but the huge majority of crank arm lengths on MTBs is an industry standard 175mm.  Why?  No idea, really.  I have no clue on how this length was picked out, but it is ubiquitous regardless or frame size (most of the time) and as a result, rider height/leg length.

The thought here is to match the length of the two levers...or maybe three levers...or maybe one lever and a fulcrum or two...heck, I am just as clueless to mechanical engineering and how it relates to the human body as the next guy, but often a longer leg length points to a longer bicycle crank arm, at least for MTB use where high RPMs are not the norm over long distances (unless you are Fixie Dave...but NO ONE else is Fixie Dave but Fixie Dave so that is silly).

I ran 180s for YEARS and years, maybe from the early 90s on.  We all were on geared bikes then, no SS, etc.  I even ran 177.5s on one road bike.  This came from a suggestion from Doug Curtiss of Curtlo Cycles, he being very tall (at least 6'4").  He ran 190s if he could find them.  I was having some knee pain and he looked at me and said, "run a longer crank".  Now I am not sure where that idea came from...too much welding fumes, perhaps, but he had way more experience on a bike then I did so I jumped up to 180mm XT cranks and never looked back.  No knee pain either, so there ya' go.

I found that it worked well with my 'diesel' approach to climbing where I would get in a taller gear, slide back on the saddle, and 'dig in'.  Chug chug chug.  I really never found an issue with spinning as we all had triples and we rarely spun out the gearing in those days unless you were under gravity's hold on you.  If that was the case, we were just holding on for dear life (pre-suspension, you know).

So when I got back into riding after taking some time off from Martial Arts, I was right back on 180s.  Then, the bike testing gig comes along and guess what?  No one specs 180mm cranks on a stock bike.  So I was spinning these 'tiny' cranks and I noticed the loss of torque right away.  I ended up riding in lower gears and at a higher RPM but that became the norm and I got used to it.  After a while, only the Lenzsport (hardly ridden) and my SS had 180s.

Then I got the first SS test bike in with 175s on it.  I was concerned about losing all that leverage.  So then one day I led a group ride that was a few hours of loops around our local trails and at the end I found the results to be intriguing.  I did notice more effort on steep climbs, but I also felt like I could get the crank 'over the top' easier and I even felt like I was less tired afterwards.  Huh.  How about that?

Another few years of 175 cranks and now I am on NO bike with 180s, even my SS.  I begin to wonder if I am missing something, so on a recent build up of the Blackbuck to test some wheels, I went back to an old, trusty set of XT Hollowtech II 180 cranks.  I also geared a bit lower by 2 teeth in the front to get this bike more set up for difficult trail rides, thinking that the combo of long crank and low gear should make steep climbs or slow trails a breeze. Normally I run 34/21 on an SS and this was now 32/21 and the 180s.

Last night I got out on the bike for the '20 Mile Loop'.  Ed The Tall was testing the carbon Stumpy SS for me, so I was on the SS Blackbuck with the180s and low gears.  Pretty much sucked, that set-up.  Part of this were the long paved road climbs to get to the trail head (and this bike was not built for that stuff).  But when I hit the dirt, I would have my revenge.  It begins with an ugly grunt up a rutted road that is a grind on a single geared bike.  I figured I would be pedaling in tall cotton here with all those wise choices I made in setting up this bike.  Watch out Ed The Tall...here comes the wind.  No wind.  Well maybe a headwind.  Slooooowww and well, slow.  Hard, too.  Whaaaahhh???

I think a couple of things went wrong.  One being the longer crank gave me the overall result of a lower effective gear AND, two, I geared down at the same time.  I should have just run a longer crank with the 'normal' gearing OR the shorter crank with the lower gearing...not both.  Both in combo  created a dead spot in the crank rotation that was so big and long lasting that I could check email and text someone while I pedaled through it.  'BAAA-LUUMP...BAAA-LUUMP' etc.  My legs were WORKED and I was going slower.

The last ride on the Super Stumpy 'S-S' for me was on that same route.  My legs were slightly fresher but I was just getting over being sick so I was hardly 'strong', yet I was moving faster EVERYWHERE on this loop.  Now the 'S-S' is a fast bike in its own right but I also had begun to experiment with and refine my standing pedal stroke to where I was making more of a 'circle', less of a 'piston' action and I was surprised to find how my climbing speed increased. I need to get better at this as it was bringing in different muscle groups but I think once I get this figured out it will be a big step ahead for me.

I could not do that last night on the 180mm cranks.  Too big a circle...too much dead stroke.  Well, I COULD do it but, it felt like I was walking though an ankle deep, muddy field..pick your feet waaaay up and step, etc.  Now another note of interest is the comments from my buddy, mentor, and editor Guitar Ted, who states that the 'old timers' of single speeding said that 170mm cranks were better for SS use.  Really? I do not know ANYONE that even HAS a set of 170s.  And that wisdom comes with no information behind it, only that it 'works better'.  But I can see a point where it might allow a quicker, smoother rotation getting over and past TDC on the crank position.  Interesting.  However, I would think that gearing would need to be adjusted down a bit too.  Dunno if tiny cranks are in my future but it is something to try.

So guess what I am going to do for now?  I am going back to 175s on this SS build and I am not looking back at all.  The 180s will be dust binned till a longer legged person comes along....so ends an era, in some ways.

And that is the long and short of it.

Weighing in on things.

I read a post the other day written by a good friend on bike weights and how important that is or is not, depending on how you look at things.  I have struggled with this as well and debated with myself on how much bike weight really matters in the grand scheme of things.  And, after all this time, I have come to a conclusion.

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Pretty decisive, eh?  Let me take them one at a time, hmmmm?

Yes:  It matters a great deal.  A heavy bike is simply more weight to accelerate, stop, turn, and flick around.  Mtn bike riding is all about all of these things repeated over and over and over and a lighter bike is better at all of them.  Physics?  Dunno.  But after riding quite a few bikes over the last few years, nearly all of them 29ers, I can only remember one time when lighter was not better and that issue only applied to a narrow section of the ride experience.  This applies especially to wheels.  Light wheels are pretty boss on a 29er.  In fact, I had an engineer for a big bike company tell me that "cheap 29ers suck" as the wheel weight gets ponderous.

No:  It is largely irrelevant.  A heavy bike will get you there with only a little bit more effort in nearly the same time and likely do it for a lot less money.  Lightness costs a lot these days...well, it always did really and that is not likely to change.  The sky is just as blue, the air just as sweet on a heavier bike, and there is no pretense or keeping up with the joneses in the gram wars.  Want a lighter bundle to get up that hill with?  Lose some weight, fatty.  What is cheaper...losing 5 pounds off the middle or losing 5 pounds off the bike?  It is the rider that makes the real difference.

Maybe:  If light means weak or fragile, that is bad.  But heavy does not mean strong either.  If you are in no hurry and there are no Strava aspirations in your plans, then a heavier bike is no biggie.  Who cares if you take a couple of minutes more to get around the trail?  But if your buddies are a pack of rippers, then you better be a beast to be a contender on a heavier bike.  I have both seen it done AND had my butt handed to me by stronger riders on a porker scooter.  If light means overextending your wallet to the point of stress about it, then be content, work on you first and let that bike do for now.  If a bike is more of a tool then pegasus to you, then the heavier bike is likely more practical.  And so on.

So between ridiculously light and unbelievably heavy lies a wide range of bikes.  I have never been one to drill holes in my crank arms (yes, I have seen that done too) and ride unpadded carbon saddles, etc.  At some point, the scale of justice tips away from good sense and the money spent to drop those last few ounces is foolishness.  Where is that tipping point?  When the bike stops being reliable, strong, practical for the purposes it is intended for, and fun to ride.

Fun, after all, is why we do this.  Sure some folks do it for a living and maybe they are not having fun at the same time, but that is such a small minority that it is not even on the radar.  Bikes are all kinds of things...practical, efficient, affordable to own, providing great exercise and contributing to our well being.  But above all other things they are fun to ride.

And I have more fun on a lighter bike, more often as not.

Just another So Cal winter weekend.

The storm blew in Friday and chilled the air enough to drop the snow level to well below 2500'.  So Sat AM we headed towards the coast to get into a warmer place and to ride a section of the Backbone Trail that I had never been on before.  It was a section of trail that Walt Disney might have made...buff, swoopy, mildly graded...it danced and dipped through the chaparral and was an absolute delight.  JeffJ and Navy Mike came out to play despite the cold.  It was 32 degrees at the gas station in the early morning and 36 degrees at the trailhead at 09:00.  Brrrr.  We warmed up fast and stripped layers, but tights were good all day.

I don't think we broke 20 miles for the day, and we failed to find the trail connector at a road crossing, instead riding some pavement to a nice viewpoint anyway.  We really did not care.  The Pacific Ocean was on our left...the snow covered mountains above to our right.  Why hurry?

That was Saturday.  Sunday was a family ride day so we headed up Warm Springs Mtn and made it about 3/4s the way up the 2000' climb before snow and rocks turned us around.  Lots of loose rocks are bad on doggies feet, especially Sophie's delicate paws.

All in all, two good rides despite bike building frustrations back at home.  Too many projects going on right now with details needing sorting.

Nature works to create art with frost as the medium...car roof top as canvas.