Somewhere a few thousand feet above Los Angeles after a good, long climb.
It is not too often that you read someone from the media saying they screwed up; that something they planned, like a bike build, did not come out as they expected. In the cycling media, things are usually all roses and chocolates.
Well, this will be different.
After some time on Project New Whip, a bike that I intended to use for testing things as well as for my main MTB ride, I realize I made some errors in my decision making process. The errors came mostly from old thinking patterns, but some were from making geometrical (is that a word?) miscalculations. So now I am getting ready to do it all over again. Sigh!
But if anything is true in this cycling thing we do, it is that the times are, as they say, A Changin’ and so am I, at least a bit. Follow along as we dive inside my head while I work through this process of New Whip: Take #2.
Let’s get some links here for the posts leading up to today:
I had made some choices that determined the course the build would take. Taken as a whole, I was looking for a bike that could do a lot of things well. It could handle long, multi hour fireroad climbs, not be a heavy beast, and needed to keep some snap*crackle*pop when pedaled hard. But when things went tipped downwards a bit, and when the trail got twisty, etc, it would handle that too with enough grace to make the day pleasant. Basically, the ‘One Bike Solution’, So Cal style. And that is what I did get…mostly.
One of the decisions I made was to pass on Boost, as I really did not need it for my immediate purposes, and I had some great wheels around that were non-Boost. I also decided to go 2X11 with Shimano XT, swimming upstream against the current of 1X madness. I chose a bike with middle range travel in the carbon Salsa Horsethief, with 120mms of rear end squish in the guise of Split Pivot. I chose a fork that matched the frame at 120mms (with an option to go 130mm) and was a bit of an XC/Light-ish Trail model.
The weight came out at 29.5 lbs with pedals and tool bag and cage. Not bad at all. No complaints there.
But what happened to spoil the soup?
Plus…Plus…Plus.
Nuts!
Now keep in mind that the planning of this bike goes back to Spring of this year, so as the process went along, things were changing out there on the trail more than I realized. I had been riding the Specialized test Fuse for some time, and had grown to appreciate what the Plus wheels did (and did not do) well. What I did not expect, however, was how much I would miss them once I stopped riding them. And as soon as I rode the freshly minted New Whip bike, I knew I had messed up. As good as 29ers are, I had come to appreciate how 27.5+ is better in many ways. And while I was not sure I wanted to be Plus 100% of the time, I knew then that I wanted the option for some of the time. And I had nicely maneuvered myself into a place where that was not possible with the new bike. Crap!
An option that I passed on…27+…oops.
Many new bikes in the same genre as the Horsethief (and of course, the newer version of the same bike by Salsa) were capable of running 27.5+ and 29er wheels/tires. And while I had not thought I would care all that much, I was wrong. I did care.
Sizing…how tall am I again?
At 6’2″ and with monkey arms (long) and monkey legs (read ‘not that long’), I have always been on XL MTBs and typically with 90-100mm stems. Now sometimes that stretches me out a bit, but remember I am an old dog so I come from the NORBA days of low, long bikes (and stupid long stems to match). As the calendar pages have been turned over the years, angles have been getting shallower on bikes, with even many XC-Race 29ers now being well under the standard 71° setting. As well, top tubes have been getting longer, chainstays have been getting shorter, and suspension travel has been increasing. It’s a new game and I have been trying to find where I fit in it. An XL bike in this new geo, with 130mms of travel, to toss out a number, has a darn long wheelbase, like over 1200mms. Is that OK? I am not sure. Past times spent riding 29ers with that wheelbase have felt a bit…hmmmm…staid, shall we say?
So the bikes are getting a bit longer in reach, but not a LOT longer…TT numbers are slightly increased and ST angles are steeper too, so the cockpit is getting pushed out a bit, making a LG frame a possible fit for me. But. Stems are getting way shorter. Chop 30mm to 40mm off of the stem length and the handlebars get closer to you really quickly. Make them wider and that spreads you back out a bit, but only a bit.
I can run a LG frame in something like the Horsethief or its ilk, but it will mean I need a 75-80mm stem to not feel cramped on long climbs or feel like I am over the bars too far when standing and going fast downhill…like some vulture awaiting my own demise. It is doable, but it is not ‘right’ either. And fit is so important. So I am in this hell of needing a LG Long, like some custom suit.
I know I see many riders on bikes with stubby stems and wiiide bars and lots of travel and they look like the bars are in their lap. I get that compromise as that keeps the bike feeling right when ridden more aggressively; over jumps, down steep drops, etc. But it is a bridge too far for me and for where and how I ride. Fit is not just important, it is personal. What is right for you may not be right for me.
So I spent a lot of pen and paper time corresponding with the engineer that designed the Horsethief as to what size I should buy. My first thought was XL. Crunching Reach and Stack numbers seemed to point to a fit on the smaller frame and the shorter wheelbase appealed to me. But numbers are like that old saying: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You still need to ride the bike to see how it turns out as the numbers do not tell the whole tale. Bikes, taken as a whole, are more nuanced then that.
End result: Basically, if I want to get the room I need and keep the stem in the 60-70mm range, I still need what is an XL in today’s market. I have a LG. Crap. Crap!
Please pass me the salt and a larger fork.
A 120mm fork is not making me happy, and while the action on the MRP Loop TR is very good…supple and responsive, and decently stiff, it’s not a Pike or Fox 34, nor does it claim to be. But I am spoiled now with the bigger forks I have been riding lately. They are what every bike like this should have, really. And once 130mm feels ‘normal’ then less than that feels odd. This was ‘old thinking’ on my part.
Tuning the Loop TR is a bit tricky as the inflation technique needs careful attention paid to it or it will not be right. JeffJ called out that the fork looked low, like it only had 100mms of travel. Careful measuring showed that there was not 120mms of exposed stanchion tube on the fork. Consulting with MRP, they suggested I revisit the inflation settings and inflation process per the hang tag that came with the fork. I did, and that gave me an additional 20mms of travel after I retuned the Loop TR.
And as a marathon or XC fork, it feels really good…supple, no diving in braking. The compression damping with that blow off deal is great for allowing you to climb out of the saddle with little fork compression yet remain active when bumps happen. But when things get faster it should be more fun too, but it lacks balance on this bike. I think taking it to 130mm would be better, but I think it’s a bit under built for that length…yes, that is speculation based on how it feels now.
Split Pivot is a solid performer.
So what did go right? Well, the frame itself is very well done. It is not the stiffest thing I have seen, speaking of the back end of the bike, but I can only see that when I look for it. On trail it feels great. Split Pivot is very impressive. Although each suspension design has some shades of difference, I think it pedals as good as anything else I have ridden, not terrifically inspiring, but very, very solid. Taken overall, the Salsa Horsethief is a very nice bike and would be a great choice for anything from marathon trail days to general MTB riding to some XC races if you build it right. No complaints there. I just need a bigger, XL version.
Got range? And close ratios? Yes.
The Shimano 2X is just sooooo darn good at certain things I really care about. 1x cannot match the range of a 2x system and still keep the gaps between each gear small. Yes, I can get a low enough gear with a 28×42 combo. That is pretty much equal to a 24×36 in old ten speed speak. But a 28×10 is not much of a high gear.
What is often overlooked when this is debated on the innerweb are the jumps between gears. A SRAM 1x has some big gaps as you get to the larger cogs. And while it may not matter at all if your trails are a series of quick, techy ups and downs, ride those big gaps over hours of long fireroad climbs and you will come to love the closer ratios of the 11-40 cassette on the XT 2x. Want just a little more or a little less gear to keep your legs efficient and your heart rate in the zone…you can have it with my set-up. And while I really do not need a 22×40 low gear to get up things, it is more about spinning over mashing, and as you age, that makes more and more sense, allowing me to control my expenditure of energy over long and varied conditions. It rocks.
Shifting the front der is just a non-issue. If you cannot get this to work, then get a 3 speed internal hub or something because you are hopeless as a bike mechanic.
The top end gear is just so so with that 34×11. It feels small, like 1x does with that typical 30T chainring, so I have to go way down the cassette to the 11 or 12 to get a big feeling gear. Meh! But the closer ratio between the 24T and the 34T ring is pretty sweet, allowing me to run between the two without that big drop down or jump up we have come to accept, like in the typical road bike compact 34/50. That sucks. We have just gotten used to what they sell these days.
Keep in mind that what works as far as gearing is very dependent on who, what, where, and why. If I were riding in Sedona, AZ, all the time, I would only have 1X, geared low. It is such a dynamic trail environment that having any option for front shifting makes no sense to me. One lever….11 gears. Got it. But the other day at home ground I climbed for 90 minutes up a long, open and rough, steep dirt road. Before that on another ride I had climbed for nearly 3 hours before we topped out. Then things got blurry on the way down. Typical So Cal. Who you are, where you ride, and what you want should determine your drivetrain choices, not current trends.
So now what? Options, options, options.
So how do I fix this?
Well, the most obvious choice is to simply get an XL Horsethief/Pony Rustler, a new fork in 130mm length, and some Boost wheels times 2…one set in 29er and one set in 27.5+. I would have it all, fit to the demands of the day. It would be a bike for all reasons. Almost. A spork of sorts, but a very good spork, and there is good value in that. I could swap wheels so that 27.5+ would be an option, keep 2x, and have more fun in the rougher stuff with something like a Pike or Fox 34, or even an MRP Stage fork for that matter.
But other frame choices have come up as I wait for the 2017 versions of the Horsethief to arrive over the ‘pond’. More bikes have been released that do this double duty wheel deal…Plus and non-Plus. Niner has the new JET9. Santa Cruz announced the alu version of the Tall Boy 3. Alu appeals to me a bit these days as carbon is getting quite expensive in the nicer blends (the JET9 will have an alu option too, I bet). It is a competitive market.
Even the pure blood of Niner bikes has yielded to the mid-in-fatuation of Plus options.
But here is another thought and it relates to the spork idea. As much appeal as the ‘1 bike for all’ has, trying to walk that middle ground…I am wondering how much of a reality it is? Right now I am riding a review bike I cannot talk about, but is a fine example of the pinnacle of today’s 29er trailbikes. Light (lots of carbon…$$$), 130mm of travel, killer wheels, 1X, slacker/shorter/longer geo. And it does a lot of things really well (no Plus option). But it still does not rip upwards on long smooth climbs like my old Epic does. And while it is really fun on techy, rougher trails, I wonder how much penalty there is in another 20mms of fork and a bit slacker HT angle?
Same with the Horsethief. Even the revised one I would end up with…would it be a jack of all trades, master of none?
If the bike does not really do what a true XC bike will do, like a Spark or Epic or RKT 9, as far as rapidly getting you up some long climb, and yet does not really make you grin madly like a more aggressive trail bike might, is it not best to just have 2 bikes?
For instance…Stumpjumper 6 Fattie/Epic Combo. If I am going to have a 29lb bike with compromises, why not have a 30lb bike with no compromises? 150 front/135 rear. Plus tires. Sounds like a blast. And if something like that bike can spin up a long climb without crushing it yet also not crush you in the process, then why not do that? It is not a bike I would have considered in the past, but I might have blinders on. If it took 29er wheels then even better, although I suspect that this option would be more likely a pure 27.5+ bike, and that brings in other considerations. Like maybe having no 29″ bike for bigger days. Is that OK?
Is this the ‘Max Fun’ option? Or is it more than that too? Specialized 6 Fattie in alu and orange. I like orange bikes.
Is it? I don’t know. I am working on getting on a bike like that in for review…longer travel, more trail focused. 27.5+ tires. I might find it is too much. But….maybe not. Maybe if the wheels are kept light and the tires moderate, who knows?
It is a new ball game and the rules are still being written as we speak. I struck out this time, but I am coming up to bat again and I have been working on hitting those curve balls. Put me in, coach.
Note: The products shown here were purchased or were provided at no cost to Twenty Nine Inches for test and review. We are not being paid, nor bribed for these reviews and we will strive to give our honest thoughts and opinions throughout.
Ah – have been wondering what was happening with this build! Interesting to hear your thoughts.. I’m yet to trial 27.5+ and think I might still be too interested in marathons to make the switch. But, my 2011 Anthem 29er is getting pretty long in the tooth, and seeing all these long/slack/short CS options coming out is starting to get me tempted to try a new frame!
Keep us posted. I expect you are not alone in this wrestling match with all the changes going on and these really are significant changes–mostly for the better.
Being a big 29er fan, I made a risky move recently to an Ibis Mojo 3+ recently with 2.8/3.0 tires and I can’t get over how good the bike is. Of course it has great traction in our poor SoCal summer conditions but it also rolls very well and climbs as well as my old Ripley did and I think the Ripley was about as good is it could be for a 120mm 29 bike.
I’m fascinated by the similar new bikes from Pivot, Santa Cruz (TB3 and Hightower), Niner and more. If I hadn’t already bought the M3 I’d look at the Pivot and Niner. That said now that I’m riding the plus wheels I’m not sure when I’d go back to 29s (blasphmey). FYI, the Ibis special blend bikes are simply amazing deals for very well built bikes with great build kits and best in the business service and support.
While in MT last week I rode a 6Fattie for the week. It was among the best Soecialized bikes I’ve ridden. I really enjoyed it. The FSR suspension, always plush but needing a bit more progressiveness, actually seemed to pedal better than ever, but still lacked compared with the fifth generation DW. The 6Fattie is a bit more bike than I need for around here, but I did like it.
Bikes are getting good these days, really good. Keep us posted and let me know if you’d like to chat soon GG.
I currently ride a Tallboy v1, and have demoed the 6Fattie a couple of times now. It’s a great bike and is really tempting for trail riding. It is not a ‘go fast’ bike IMO. It might be better at going fast with 29″ wheels on it. The major downside to Specialized is their pushing of ebikes, it makes it very hard to buy from them when they demonstrate such disdain for trail access issues.
Great insights on matching the bike to the rider and terrain! Love these type of articles. I too am in SoCal and do similar rides if a bit shorter in duration on a 2014 Epic which can’t be beat for long fire road climbing, but is wanting on the way back down either fire road or singletrack. Will be interesting to know if you can find that perfect compromise.
I’m a recent convert to the plus movement as well. Previously rode a Trek Fuel EX 29 (upgraded to 130mm Pike & carbon wheels) which was a great bike but I was too curious about 27.5+. I knee jerk pulled the trigger on a Cannondale Bad Habit 2 (I’m also drawn to orange bikes) on a good deal from LBS. It was an okay ride so I went to work upgrading to Fox 34 Factory 130mm and built some Easton ARC 40’s shod with Nobby Nic 2.8’s. It was much better up front but the single pivot rear suspension was lacking plus a number of early suspension pivot bearing failures had me regretting the move. Yet I loved the plus format and wanted to stick with it.
By luck another good deal from LBS set me onto the very same orange Stumpy 6fattie Granny Gear is considering. So I dumped the Cannondale. I was apprehensive about the extra travel of the Stumpjumper (for Wisconsin riding) but I couldn’t be happier now that I’m on it. The bike is set up really well and, aside from going tubeless, I’m not planning on changing anything immediately.
I’ve had a chance to demo or rent other bikes this year with “normal” tires (Santa Cruz Hightower 29, Yet SB4.5c, Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt and Altitude) and after riding those I’m not sure I want to go away from the bigger rubber I like it that much.
@All…good comments…I appreciate your findings. Keep it up. And yes, @Matt…Orange bikes are always better.
gg
Aside from the inevitably crippling case of upgradeitis, I still really think your build is excellent overall, and remarkably easy to make minor tweaks to do get it where you want.
The 2×11 gearing is spot on (I have basically the same gear range with a legacy 22/36 x 11-36 2×10 setup) for big riders on big mountain, and to be honest even the extravagantly pricy 1×12 setups still lack gearing on the extremes while using larger steps.
Putting FD capability into a new bike hunt limits the frame models considerably, and once achieved pricing enters the matrix where big savings on major components can be converted into weight savings and nicer equipment, I think you’re way closer than you realize.
I think going to 130mm right away on the fork is the right call. Maybe look into what wider rubber options exist in 29er formats (probably something like a 2.35 Ikon out back, 2.35 Ardent Race out front?) although we’ll probably see better rubber start rolling out (29×2.5 Rekon would be a nice tire, for example).
Maybe a bit more rise on a handlebar, at a 740-750mm width would get you a bit more effective reach out of your setup (slam the stem, run an inverted -6° rise 70mm stem setup). I suggest this, because it’s what I run and I’m your height/dimensions, but just tubbier.
One other observation GG. Sounds like you are riding the San Gabriel’s? If so, my take is that it is virtually impossible to find the “perfect” bike given the topography. Miles long fire road climbs, and varied, often rutted, steep and/or exposed and rocky singletrack, or alternatively bombing back down the fire road at high speed, are kind of at the extremes. Everything’s a compromise. But if you find the perfect bike, I want to know what it is . . .
Last year I bought the Ibis 941 wheels with an inside measurement of 35 mm. Mounted up a pair of 2.35 Hans Dampf’s. Super wide footprint, very stiff, and I have lowered my tire preassure to the low 20’s. I have a Trek Remedy 9 29 with 140 mm of travel. Every time I ride this bike I fall in love again. So I think you can stay with 29er and keep all the great 29er stuff, and get some of the bonus of +, with a wheel upgrade/upsize. Also the bike looks awesome!
Mike
@Michael…I am now on 29mm internal rims with 2.3 tires at nearly 2.4″ effective width and can easily run at 21lbs. It is great, but it is not Plus.
I do wonder though…if we had not gone all the way to 3.0 as 29+, like 2.6″x29″? Makes ya’ wonder.
gg
Hi GG,
Agree with you about 29 x 3 as a size too big. The problem was all that development took place with a growing popularity of 4 and 5 inch tires. Probably felt like they couldn’t go wrong. Hoping that someone comes out with a small block 2.6 x 29. I think with the smaller tread I could fit them on my bike. But that being said I am pretty happy with my setup. Too bad Trek has decided to discontinue one of their most popular bikes ever by getting rid of the Remedy 29. Sometimes this industry makes me shake my head. I mean this like the same craziness that made them discontinue U-brakes! Lol
Michael
New Trek Fuel EX.
I recently started riding a 29er hardtail Plusbike and I never thought a Plusbike would be so good. This bike handles better and is way more capable than my regular full-suspension 29er bike. It is also just as fast as my regular 29er once you get on dirt. The regular 29er is faster on pavement but once you get on even a dirt road the Plusbike is faster. I think the secret to keeping a Plusbike speedy and nimble is to use narrower i29-35mm (i = inner width) rims and to use tires that weigh less than 900gm for a 29er Plusbike and 840gm for a 27er Plusbike; which is how my bike is built. This setup can be as much as 1.5 pounds (908gm) per wheel lighter than the heaviest Plusbike rim/tire combos. (The weight could be reduced even more with carbon fiber rims.) That’s 3 lbs (1362gms) per bike. A good Plusbike should only weight about 1 pound more than a similarly equipped regular mountian bike of the same wheel diameter. Unfortunately, most Plusbikes now available use wider rims and heavier tires than are necessary for most trail riding and therefore give a sluggish, slow rolling, and heavy ride.
My regular 29er now just collects dust and I will likley never buy a regular mountain bike again. Your next bike should be a Plusbike.
I eagerly await a full-suspension 29er Plusbike. If a full-suspension Fatbike can be built, a full-suspension 29er Plusbike can be built. 29 x 3in is not a size to big if the rims and tires are right.
The 29er killed off the 26er and now the Plusbike is set to kill off the regular mountain bike if bike manufacturers can get the wheels right. I can see the day when x-c racers go to the starting line with 27 x 2.7in/650gm tires and i29mm/350gm carbon fiber rims. Mountain bikes just keep getting better – Plus size wheels, modern slack trail bike geometry, 1x drive trains. Mountain bikes have never been easier, safer, and more capable than the modern Plusbike.
@Mark…The rim width debate is interesting. It stands to reason that, if a 29mm internal rim is better for low pressures on a 2.2″ tire, then a 3.0 inch tire should be better at low pressures with a 40-ishmm rim. However, the weight comes up as you stated. But on an FS bike like a Pony Rustler or 6Fattie, is lower PSI better with the speeds that all that suspension travel allows? Maybe not. Maybe the upper teens is more like it for less sidewall squirm and better rim strike protection. And if we are running 18psi in a 3.0 tire, is that more like what 25psi is in a normal 29er tire? If so, then less rim width is maybe not an issue as I only see wider rims as a benefit is tire pressures are lower.
I think what you are seeing in the bikes spec’d with 2.8s is a desire to tune out some of the fat bike feel that plus has. However at some point you get to where it is barely plus anymore and is just a bigger 27.5 tire and a really small overall outer diameter as compared to 29″.
29+ in an FS is a difficult package to wrap up. Needs a really big bow. But something like a low travel…say 80-90mm rear and 120mm front…could be pretty cool.
gg
Long time TNI reader but first time poster here. I read this article a week or more back and keep thinking about it so first off thanks for the pondering-while-bike-riding material. That’s why I keep reading. I agree with all your rationale behind this article. I’m lucky enough to have several mediocre bikes and even one or two nice bikes and have, for a while now, thought big rubber was a great thing. From 4.8s and 3.8s, to a “plus” 3.0, to a monster cross, I like to put rubber under any bike that’s mine and for the arid desert I mostly ride it flat out works.
Something stayed with me about this article though.
Even though your thinking is inline with mine, I can’t agree that your decision was a mistake, nothing “went wrong”. Kind of like Tehllama’s post above, you got a great bike! If you got the last bike in a long stream of great bikes that adhered to a non-boost, non-plus mentality then you got the most polished model. That same “mistake” bike would have blow the spearfishes and their fewer pivots of yesterday out of the water and those bikes had a cult following especially amongst endurance riders.
Bikes will evolve but the trails are the same ya know. My plus bikes are awesome and their merits are easy to boast about (and at the local watering hole I do), but when I take all my bikes to the same average trail I ride weekly and do my best at a qualitative, timed run you know what wins? My 6ish year old, beat down, Pivot 429 alloy. The one with the sporty 24mm rims, perfectly normal 2.3s, and 120mm up front. Damn that bike is just good and it’s so close to your horsethief … that dw link ….
I told my friend that just got a screaming deal on a karate monkey hardtail that he got an outstanding bike. He got the end of an era, the best bike that particular run can be. To be that good and get those trick dropouts and the fox fork it had to go beyond the price-point bike it really is. Yet, they are straight giving those bikes away now. I can’t help but see the new, great monkey for what it left behind. The iconic 29er is no longer a 29er and this new model in its’ out-of-the-box form won’t beat what it replaced on my timed course, I can promise that.
Picking a winner isn’t important though. Your “wrong” bike is outstanding and, even if the new model has undeniable benefits, I say you got a gem of a bike. Truly one from a handful of great bikes you could have bought. It may not get the cred or the talk around town anymore but that bike rips, and in places it might even rip harder than what replaced it.
So that beat-down Pivot of mine is getting the facelift it deserves. No major changes, no slacker angles, no new rims or fatter tires, just the love and grease it needs to keep ripping for me. Thanks for helping me see that.
Back @ gg… First off, a 29×3.0in wide, 30.4in tall tire when mounted to an i45mm (i = inner width) rim will be become a 2.8in wide, 30.0in tall tire when mounted to an i29mm rim. Rule of Thumb: an 8mm inner rim width change produces 0.1in tire width change and also produces 0.2in tire height change. As another example, a 29×2.4in wide, 29.2in tall tire when mounted to an i21mm rim will become a 2.5in wide, 29.4in tall tire when mounted to an i29mm rim. Sorry for all the tech talk but I just wanted everyone to know how rim width effects tire width.
Anyhow, as you know, many of the new Plusbikes are coming out with 2.8in tires and i40mm rims. I think there is something to this because it reduces weight and rolling resistance while still providing 99% of the flotation and traction benefits of the 3.0in tire/i45mm rim combo. However, mounting 3.0in wide tires to i29mm rims which then become 2.8in wide tires also accomplishes the same thing. Here are a few reasons why I think the narrow rim makes for a better Plusbike wheel. Narrow rims are cheaper – frequently by more than $50 each. Narrow rims get less rim strikes and therefore fewer dings, warps, and flat spots because the greater the difference between tire width and rim width the more the tire protects the rim. Narrow rims (i29-35mm) can reasonably mount to 2.3-2.4in tires – no need for a new wheelset just change tires but must have a enough bottom bracket height. Just because the first Plusbikes came with 3.0in tires and i45mm rims does not mean that they were ideal for trail riding.
I’ve come believe the ideal tire pressure for Plusbikes is 15 to 17psi. For many rides I tried pressures in 11-14psi range and suffered Soft TIre Side Effects also known as “STISE”. Wallow and jiggle – like riding on a bowl of jello. Back pain – probably caused by my back muscles compensating for the wallow and jiggle. Autosteer – the bike not going where I point it. Pavement ripping – the noise and feeling that the tires are ripping the pavement right out of the street. High rolling resistance – who needs brakes when the bike will stop itself and boy you’re getting one heck of a workout. Vagueness – the loss of tactile sense about where the bike is and where it’s going. Rim strikes – ouch! However, when I started riding 15psi front/16psi rear all my STISE was gone. I was riding my bike – it wasn’t riding me. I don’t think most riders will want to ride less than 15psi because of STISE.
@Mark…great forensic input! Thanks.
gg