aener

Boring old Google search, for me.

They snap. Usually on big front-gaps when you really don't want them to

To an extent, yeah. Lighter clothes will make a difference (I know for sure that I ride better in shorts over jeans, though that could be to do with range of movement too), but shaving a bit of body fat won't do much. There's quite a difference between the weight your legs have to push up a jump, and the weight of the object you have to drag up it with you. Not really sure how to explain it, so hopefully having it pointed out to you will flick a switch in your head and you'll get what I mean

If you're looking for yet more savings, once you've opened out the headtube, you could enlarge the purge holes in the top and down-tube. Same goes for the bottom of the downtube and top of chainstays if your tooling can fit inside the BB somehow.

...I'm confused. Last I heard, to enter the comp you had to do your own edit. Did that change? Ignoring that.. SWEET. 1:38 was just the best.

If that's a drawing from Josh, then I stand corrected. I was only running the numbers through my head, and they didn't seem to add up. The geo in that diagram should ride pretty nice, but I'm a fan of short stays. 350 all the way, for me

That won't work. The reach is a result of the front end being combined with the HA. You can't specify lengths that won't fit together. Ie. A 1000mm WB frame with a 72HA will have a certain length reach (according to BB rise and CS length), but you can't specify you want that same length reach on a bike with the same geometry except for a 73HA. It physically can't happen. My reach is 595. Your CS is 5mm longer than mine, and wheelbase 15mm longer (making front end 10mm ((or very very nearly, anyway)) longer). With that wheelbase and head angle, the reach would be more than 600mm. It'd be more like 610. Seeing as the wheelbase doesn't effect the ride as much as the reach - if you're settled on a 600mm reach, just tell whoever builds the frame you want a 600mm reach with a 73 HA, and let the WB be whatever it works out at. It's easy enough to work out, if you wanted to know, but just thought I'd mention it. Edit: Pro diagram: This is what'd happen if you adjusted the reach around the WB. If you adjusted with WB around the reach, the reach'd stay the same, and the wheelbase would shorten. Second way is better, in my opinion. Getting the reach you want will make more difference than a specific wheelbase with a slightly too long reach. You should take in to consideration the stem, too. If you want the same bar position but quicker steering, you can run a shorter and steeper (or shorter with more stackers) stem and steepen the head angle. You need to know what you want, really. Else just go with a geo of a frame you know you like.

Jeff Anderson got a 1.9kg Meta VTT2 down to 1.6kg by running a sanding pad in a grinder over all the tubes. Probably wise not to take it that far - he's super-comp so fair enough - but if you concentrate on lower-stress areas I reckon you could save a fair bit. Also - headtube, bottom of BB, back of BB yoke where it joins chainstays, dropouts, seat-tube if you're desperate (but it looks gash - also, it's part of the top-tube on that frame so dunno if that might compromise strength), strip paint... That's all I've got for now.

Nick Cooke's Triton is a Monty geometry. He's just a f**king beast and can ride any bike however he likes My frame is: Reach: 595 WB: 980 HA: 73* CS: 350 BB: 70 If you want something T-Proish: WB 1010, HA 72*, CS 360, BB 55/60 is a reasonable approximation.

Just about to watch. LOVING the fact it's 13:37 long Edit: Yes, yes, and yes again. Supremely watchable video with ridiculous riding. I loved having Ali as the sort of... Ambassador of Brakeless, but I've gotta say I think the lines he comes out with when using brakes are even cooler.

With all those stackers, I think you bars are already high enough. Are you changing them because you want to, or because someone else doesn't like your current ones? If you're happy with how they are, don't change them.

Marco Grosenick.

And also a whole slew of videos over the past few years that aren't the big ones. http://vimeo. com/user611953/videos/page:1/sort:date Edit: Had to put the space in else it tries to embed it.

That's amazing. Really? I didn't realize modern mod frames had 400mm chainstays.

Rim sidewalls are ~2mm thick. A grind will take off ~0.1-0.3mm, unless you're being seriously aggressive. A DOB mag' rim won't last as long as an alloy one because they're a super soft metal. That's just unfortunate. Point out to your Dad that pretty much 95% of rim-brake users grind their rims. Most of them don't buy a new rim very often, and when they do it's not usually because of too much material being removed from a grind. I can totally understand where he's coming from. I felt exactly the same when Ed Potts (a guy 'round here who was my gateway in to trials) suggested a grind - but he changed my mind saying "If, by some miracle, you do knacker the rim, it can be replaced for about £40. You can't replace your back. If you loop out in an unlucky place, you're screwed for life." He said this because I just looped out in front of him because my brake on a smooth rim was so bad. Just remember you only need to roughen the surface up. You don't actually need to "grind" deep, it's just thousands upon thousands of surface scratches. Also point out to him that you can pay for it to be done to a rim before you even get it posted, by the most influencial trials shop in the world (http://www.tartybikes.co.uk/workshop/tartybikes_rim_grind/c34p10160.html). They wouldn't be able to offer that if it posed serious problems. Don't go to tar, it's horrible. It's sticky and feels (and SOUNDS) absolutely rank. Also, when it's wet, it turns to oily sludge and makes the brake WAY worse. Tar is always a last resort

Ah hah. My bad. I can see how it would read like that, but that's absolutely not what I was saying Mark's explanation was on the money.

I wish you would stop implying that riding brakeless will kill you. If anything, it's less dangerous. You get so practiced at coming off that you learn how not to get hurt most the time. I know seven brakeless riders in person, and none of them have had injuries you wouldn't get otherwise (shindigs etc) (and nor have I), so please stop telling people it's such a bad idea.

Guaranteed now to be slightly shorter than it otherwise would've been, entirely due to you and your big mou- ...fingers.

The lowest profile one I know of is that Pro-Tec one that you can't buy over here because it fails the point-impact test. You can get them imported from America if you're desperate, but they're still not slim enough to go under a hat (unless that hat's size a-million). Helmets are all similar for a reason. If they were much thinner, they wouldn't do the job. If you're going to the trouble of making one so thin that you look cool but it doesn't perform is primary function, you may as well just sack it off altogether and wear a hat. If you don't wear one, trials riders will whinge at you endlessly. They, in general, seem incapable of recognizing that it's a personal decision. I wear one because I fall off a lot, and slam my head hard enough that I suspect it'd do real damage maybe three or four times a year, but I don't give anyone not wearing one shit because it's their damn choice. They know there's the potential of injury, but they don't see it as worth it. Same way I know I stand a chance of getting shindigs, but don't wear shin-pads. Same way as my chain could snap and I break my neck, but I still ride bikes. In short: wear helmet, or don't. Wear one that won't protect your head is pointless.

That line took quite a bit of work The frame geo is: Reach: 595 HA: 73 WB: 980 CS: 350 BB: 70 and it's a 150x35* Trialtech Sport stem. http://www.tartybikes.co.uk/20_inch_stems/trialtech_sport_forged/c29p10437.html Thanks again

73 is a good number Much shorter stem, too. It's just generally shorter, thus better for bunnyhops. From BB to bar clamp, it's actually 60mm shorter than the Marino!

I let minor instances slide, but you're so impressively overusing them, I think you should read this.

Whoa. Thanks guys Thought it wouldn't be to most people's taste this time, but I guess TF's more accepting than I thought I'm not thinking anything yet. Just didn't want to have these for another two months. Already had some of them sat on my hard-drive for five weeks. Just gonna wing it

In the light of recent events, I thought it better to sack GETCreative off and start afresh. This is what I've been gathering with the intent of using it for that, but THIS IS NOT MY GETCreative ENTRY. I've picked up a couple more sponsors since last time - still under Tarty's wing, but now Trialtech and Jaf Bikes too! Super grateful to them. They've pieced me together what I'd consider to be my perfect bike! Happy with a lot of the lines/clips, but as a video I don't think it's as good as my past ones, so sorry about that. (I'd like to point out that the 180 off the bench at 1:50 is a front-tyre-tree-whacker. The angle/whatever doesn't really show it ) Leftovers and crashes: P.S. I know some of it's VERY BMXy, but I reckon that's the novelty of having a bike that's nice for it having yet to wear off.