StandardShift.com

Only available in Japan

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp? ... ut=article

sounds like they can keep it there

For $10,000 I would expect it to weigh less. Pretty sure you can get a similarly equipped electronic shifting Dura Ace carbon fiber bike weighing 15 pounds for less money. Probably similarly limited edition, too.

theholycow wrote:For $10,000 I would expect it to weigh less. Pretty sure you can get a similarly equipped electronic shifting Dura Ace carbon fiber bike weighing 15 pounds for less money. Probably similarly limited edition, too.

This. For 10 stacks I'll get a lighter, better bike at my LBS without the Lexus markup on top of the component supplier's markup. There are quite a few bikes that hover around 14lb mark that I've been seeing there. Granted, some costing MORE than 10 grand.

Forgettaboutit.

For me, I'd pick up the Yeti XTR carbon and have 2 grand left over for upgrades.

I ride a beat up old Raleigh M30 I got from a garage sale for about $5.

My mountain bike cost (when I bought new) more than quite a few of the cars I've owned. In the last two months I've spent just over $400 on maintenance and a bunch of new parts.

I treat it as a health investment up front rather than medical bills later. Besides, you can't shred trails riding a medical bill.

No, but you could shred a medical bill riding a medical bill.

I'll still take the trails.


I was expecting a wise-ass comment about trail-related medical bills, but got off easy on that one.

I just have a $8 bike from a garage sale. $10k for a bike is just ridiculous!

AHTOXA wrote:Forgettaboutit.

For me, I'd pick up the Yeti XTR carbon and have 2 grand left over for upgrades.

Why do the tires seem reversed. The front is knobbier, which seems should be on the back for maximum traction. Or am I missing something here?

My garage sale beater. But I changed the handle bars and seat from the stock M30:

InlinePaul wrote:

AHTOXA wrote:Forgettaboutit.

For me, I'd pick up the Yeti XTR carbon and have 2 grand left over for upgrades.

Why do the tires seem reversed. The front is knobbier, which seems should be on the back for maximum traction. Or am I missing something here?

this doesn't fully answer your question, but some insight:
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index ... 73041.html
and this site has even more insight:
http://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires/kno ... 26583.html

InlinePaul,

I've not done any research on those tires but it's likely that the set on that bike are front and rear specific, meaning the rear tire was designed to be used only as the rear tire and the front only as the front.

I run a front and rear specific set on my bike and the front tire knobs are large and substantial. They are designed to provide stopping power and gripping power when the bike is leaning. They wouldn't be good on the back. The back tire usually doesn't need to have as much bite as the front. Reason for that is because the rear tire has more weight on it and thus more traction. It also doesn't experience as much lateral force on it when cornering as compared to the front tire.

Upon a second look - they are entirely different tires, however the concept is the same.

Here is the set that I run. I took these when the set was brand new. This reminds me that I need to replace them now.

Rear: Paddles for traction going straight.



Front: angled knobs for the best corner bite.

Very interesting. Makes sense. Thanks.