All Things Bikes and Tacos! (...and every vehicle imaginable)

But then again I heard the same for the Following vs Offering and then also people that had both saying the Offering in no way pedals like the Following, so who really knows. So far my only grievance with the Following is the too-slack seat tube at my seat height (longish legs) and not being very thrilled with my Pike Select. They could probably scrap the Following and Offering and make a 130 bike with the Offering geo and have one of the best all around trail bikes out there. Then straight to the Wreckening.

 

I'm one step ahead...

 

its decent. not a lot of ventilation, but i didnt feel sticky with sweat after my ride. it was like 60f when i tried them and just wanted to get a feel on how they were on the bike. definitely pants you want to roll the cuffs up on though, not really a taper near the ankle.

 

Read an article on singltracks.net about these a while back. Recently was on a road trip where I thought I packed riding pants but didn’t. Ended up grabbing a pair of these in a pinch at the local Walmart for <$30. Yup, can confirm they’re great. Gonna grab a couple more.

https://www.wrangler.com/shop/atg-b..._MEN_OUTDOOR_PANTS&dwvar_NS849U_color=NS849DS

 

And here’s that article

https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-gear/affordable-mtb-pants-from-target/

 

Costco had similar pants a few weeks ago. I picked up a pair for $10, but i forgot where i put them...

 

Question for you bike gurus. My new Fezzari fat bike came with Clark M2 brakes and they leave a lot to be desired. I had to resort to 2 finger braking to get them to grab, felt like my old cable activated disc brakes. The bike has 160 rotors front and rear. Are the Clarks worth a damn, just need better/more aggressive pads, or should i be looking at a whole brake upgrade? I believe i can fit a 180 rotor up front easy enough, but even the high build versions of this bike only have a 160 in the rear. What say you, new pads or something more drastic?

 

Well, I spent about 3-4 times as much but really like my Specialized pants. Perfect fit, very adjustable waist, good pockets, etc. First riding pants I’ve had since wearing sweats 30+ years ago and they get a lot of use. If I had those Wranglers I know the drawstring at the cuffs would get wrapped around my crank in the first 1/4 mile. Otherwise they look good.

 

This guy is insane. Lol
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6XJkxBOW54

 

So cool thing about these pedals are they are standardized threads. Not cool thing is I need to drill a hold so I can sink these things deeper.

I bought some cheap issi pins because of the thread and was going to reathread if need be. I don’t need to, but I need an actual through hole or just snip them off.

Or just go all traction. lol

 

My new bike

 

Pretty accurate

 

Oh yea! I heard about ATG! thanks !

 

I picked up some Pearl Izumi Launch Trail pants a while back when it was about the only thing I could find in stock and have been very happy with them. (Very) Tapered ankle, waist adjustment, a bit water resistant, and rear loading front pocket (so phone sits on side of leg).

Seems to be way more options only a couple years later. I’d still like to try some NF pants though as they seemed like the best option last time I was looking.

 

This would be killer. Problem is most people aren't looking for a 130 bike, it's kinda niche. Bike shoppers are either looking for short travel (120), "All Mountain" (150), or Enduro (160+). When the simply look at travel, and most do, and see 130 they think it's either too much or too little.
Personally, I'd travel in my Django for a 130 bike with aggressive geo. Shit, I almost swapped to an Optic frame this year.
You can always throw in a -1.5* angleset and switch to the "low" position on your Following. That'd get you to the 66.5* HA with a steep 77* SA, and some increased pedal clearance to boot. Adding in some LSC would help too. A lot of people forget that static numbers don't mean shit, and bumping up LSC (to a point) can help a ton with dynamic STA.

 

Buddy loaned me his GG smash with a push coil to try last night.

It definitely felt heavy but still climbed pretty well. I'm not sure I loved that though, so I think the commencal is out.

Cornering was amazing, like it wanted to be leaned over. I think the push coil was pretty noticeable at smoothing out chatter too. Overall, it felt like a big bike with a little less travel. It's actually longer and slacker than my Rallon.

 

Eh, I've found that 130R/140F is the sweet spot for me. I had a Remedy 150/160 for a while and never used more than 3/4 of the travel, even after setting it soft on the high end of sag. I thought that all the "features" of Bentonville trails would benefit from a bit more travel, but I don't hit the huge ones anyway (getting too old for the risk/reward calculation to work out). Being "overbiked" for the <1% chance that I might need it just wasn't worth it. That bike felt great pointed down and going 15mph+ where it really came alive, but that's a small percentage of my riding time, and the Fuel does almost as well through the chunk at speed. I haven't tried one, but a 120 bike seems like it just wouldn't be comfortable on the chunky stuff. I don't use all the travel of my Fuel, but come much closer than on the Remedy. Now, if I lived somewhere where there were bike parks with lifts, I'd likely have a 150/160 since a much larger percentage of my rides would be in the sweet spot for the bike.

 

I think I found out why the Saris was so cheap

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ind...covid-whiplash-restructures-sale#.YscU_3bMK70

 

I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the big brands they pretty much all offer a 130 range bike as the heart of their line-up (Stumpy, Fuel EX, Trance X, Optic). I think it's mainly the small brands pushing the 120 bikes and especially the aggressive 120 bikes. The one-bike crowd wants those 130 all around trail bikes I think.

I should have given the Optic a bit more of a shot. It just felt too much like my Scout and I was wanting to change things up.

Yeah the -1 or -1.5 in LOW was my plan. Although I haven't gotten along well with the fork at 130 and there's a chance I may go back to 140 so I'd need to play with the numbers with that in mind. The STA they post is kind of bullshit though. At my seat height the effective STA is 75 right now (measured and CAD model). And the way anglesets work a -1.5 doesn't actually give you a -1.5 HA change and even less change in SA. On the Following a -1.5 with 130 for gives a HA change of -1.1 for 65.8 and a SA change of 0.38 right to 75.5. I think I'd like the bike better with a 77 degree STA. I just switched it to extra low but haven't ridden it like that. I doubt I'll leave it but figured it was at least worth trying. So far the slack STA has been more of an issue for me than the steep HTA.

 

Bummer to hear that bike has been such a disappointment for you. Sorry I pumped it up as much as I did. It’s been an absolute riot for me. Any minor quibbles I might have had with the geo I’ve learned to ride with and just run it.

Mine is set at XLOW. I’ve considered switching it back to LOW, but most all my climbing is short/punchy vs long sustained grinding where it might be more of a nuisance. Seems like I have a lower saddle position too so that likely contributes. Didn’t you size down on your frame? Wonder if that is contributing to any of your troubles being highlighted.