<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Nonmarketable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nonmarketable.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nonmarketable.com</link>
	<description>&#60;i&#62;non·mar·ket·a·ble&#60;/i&#62; (adj) - Difficult or impossible to market</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:11:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fox Float iCD System by RockShox Electronic Shock</title>
		<link>http://www.nonmarketable.com/fox-float-icd-system/#comment-155</link>
		<dc:creator>RockShox Electronic Shock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonmarketable.com/?p=161#comment-155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] == &quot;undefined&quot;){ addthis_share = [];}Its only been a matter of weeks since posting about the Fox Float iCD system and a test has come out of RockShox&#8217;s electronic suspension [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] == &quot;undefined&quot;){ addthis_share = [];}Its only been a matter of weeks since posting about the Fox Float iCD system and a test has come out of RockShox&#8217;s electronic suspension [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #6 by Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.nonmarketable.com/6-2/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 13:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonmarketable.com/?p=120#comment-18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The point I was trying to get across is that there are other bikes that will do what the Foes Shaver does, that would be lighter due to material advances, which questions the ethos of “more is better”. I used the examples of the downhill bikes because if a model that requires maximum strength (in the case of the downhill) can weigh less, then surely there are comparably frames to the Shaver that would weigh even less. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/06/01/just-in-trek-remedy-9-9-carbon-frameset/&quot; title=&quot;Trek Remedy 9.9 Carbon&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Trek Remedy 9.9 Carbon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=124359&quot; title=&quot;Santa Cruz Nomad Carbon Weight&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Santa Cruz Nomad Carbon&lt;/a&gt; come to mind. 

I agree with you that I did a rather board comparison of bikes and that I didn’t take cost in consideration. But if we take cost AND weight into consideration, we can still find other frames that appear attractive against the Shaver.

The Shaver is 7.5 pounds, with a price tag of $2.3K and features 5.5” of travel. The&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/frames/mountain/product/review-giant-reign-frame-only-45194&quot; title=&quot;Giant Reign&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Giant Reign&lt;/a&gt; features more travel than the Shaver at 5.9”, the frame weighs in at 6.5 pounds - and a complete bike can be had for under $3K. Giant bikes might not be as exotic as the brands you mentioned, but those on a budget would be foolish to look past it in a rush. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.santacruzmtb.com/heckler/&quot; title=&quot;Santa Cruz Heckler&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Santa Cruz Heckler&lt;/a&gt; is listed as $1050 on their website, weighs 6.7 pounds, and it also features more travel than the Shaver at 5.9”. There’s also the Trek Remedy, but I’ll stop.

I don’t agree with your weight ranges as being comparable. The Tomac Vanish at 8 pounds is 15% heavier than the Turner 5-spot at 6.5 pounds. Ask any rider who participates in enduro (which is what I consider hardcore mountain biking) which they’d prefer, all other things being the same, I am sure they’ll choose the latter. I might come off as a weight weenie, but XTR and XX command such a premium over their lower price siblings largely (I say largely) because they weigh less.

And finally, I don’t believe that being made in the USA definitively equates to better quality (that is what you are trying to imply right?) I mean, World Champion Danny Hart’s bike is made somewhere in Asia, and it seems to go alright.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point I was trying to get across is that there are other bikes that will do what the Foes Shaver does, that would be lighter due to material advances, which questions the ethos of “more is better”. I used the examples of the downhill bikes because if a model that requires maximum strength (in the case of the downhill) can weigh less, then surely there are comparably frames to the Shaver that would weigh even less. The <a href="http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/06/01/just-in-trek-remedy-9-9-carbon-frameset/" title="Trek Remedy 9.9 Carbon" rel="nofollow">Trek Remedy 9.9 Carbon</a> and <a href="http://www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=124359" title="Santa Cruz Nomad Carbon Weight" rel="nofollow">Santa Cruz Nomad Carbon</a> come to mind. </p>
<p>I agree with you that I did a rather board comparison of bikes and that I didn’t take cost in consideration. But if we take cost AND weight into consideration, we can still find other frames that appear attractive against the Shaver.</p>
<p>The Shaver is 7.5 pounds, with a price tag of $2.3K and features 5.5” of travel. The<a href="http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/frames/mountain/product/review-giant-reign-frame-only-45194" title="Giant Reign" rel="nofollow"> Giant Reign</a> features more travel than the Shaver at 5.9”, the frame weighs in at 6.5 pounds &#8211; and a complete bike can be had for under $3K. Giant bikes might not be as exotic as the brands you mentioned, but those on a budget would be foolish to look past it in a rush. The <a href="http://www.santacruzmtb.com/heckler/" title="Santa Cruz Heckler" rel="nofollow">Santa Cruz Heckler</a> is listed as $1050 on their website, weighs 6.7 pounds, and it also features more travel than the Shaver at 5.9”. There’s also the Trek Remedy, but I’ll stop.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with your weight ranges as being comparable. The Tomac Vanish at 8 pounds is 15% heavier than the Turner 5-spot at 6.5 pounds. Ask any rider who participates in enduro (which is what I consider hardcore mountain biking) which they’d prefer, all other things being the same, I am sure they’ll choose the latter. I might come off as a weight weenie, but XTR and XX command such a premium over their lower price siblings largely (I say largely) because they weigh less.</p>
<p>And finally, I don’t believe that being made in the USA definitively equates to better quality (that is what you are trying to imply right?) I mean, World Champion Danny Hart’s bike is made somewhere in Asia, and it seems to go alright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #6 by Mr. Pibb</title>
		<link>http://www.nonmarketable.com/6-2/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Pibb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 21:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonmarketable.com/?p=120#comment-17</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In order to have a meaningful comparison between mountain bikes, you have to compare apples to apples. But here, you are trying to compare apples to freeze-dried pears. The Foes Shaver isn’t merely relevant, it’s a cutting edge hard-core mountain bike - not a light weight cross-country racing bike. The frame weighs in at 7.5lbs. That compares very well with the Turner 5-spot (6.8lbs), Intense Tracer 2 (7lbs), Tomac Vanish (8lbs) and Yeti SB66 (7.5lbs). You fail to realize that all of these bikes represent quantum leaps in metallurgy by providing a much stronger frame at a much lighter weight (and as we will see a more affordable price) than was possible just a few years ago.

You site Yeti and Trek as examples of companies that are using, in your eyes, better technology and materials. So let’s take a closer look shall we?

The Yeti SB66 is always rated near the top for performance. The aluminum version, as mentioned previously, comes in at 7.5lbs and $3300 MSRP. The carbon version is 6lbs., 1.5lbs lighter and $4450 MSRP. That weight savings works out to about $733 per pound.

Aaron Gwin is racing a Trek Session 9.9. The frame weight of this bike is 7.2 lbs, 34lbs and $8929.99 for a complete bike. This is indeed light for a downhill racing bike, but is only a few ounces lighter than the Foes Shaver. It is useless to compare a downhill bike to a trail/all-mountain bike, especially when the price difference is so large.

If you have a few grand burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead and spend it on a high zoot carbon frame mountain bike. The rest of us who are on a budget will save our pennies for a more affordable aluminum frame that is just as strong and only a bit heavier.

Hard core riders who are tough on their gear and depend on it to handle whatever the trail can throw at them simply demand bikes like the Shaver.

And by the way, the Foes Shaver is made in USA while Trek has off-shored nearly all of its OCLV carbon production.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In order to have a meaningful comparison between mountain bikes, you have to compare apples to apples. But here, you are trying to compare apples to freeze-dried pears. The Foes Shaver isn’t merely relevant, it’s a cutting edge hard-core mountain bike &#8211; not a light weight cross-country racing bike. The frame weighs in at 7.5lbs. That compares very well with the Turner 5-spot (6.8lbs), Intense Tracer 2 (7lbs), Tomac Vanish (8lbs) and Yeti SB66 (7.5lbs). You fail to realize that all of these bikes represent quantum leaps in metallurgy by providing a much stronger frame at a much lighter weight (and as we will see a more affordable price) than was possible just a few years ago.</p>
<p>You site Yeti and Trek as examples of companies that are using, in your eyes, better technology and materials. So let’s take a closer look shall we?</p>
<p>The Yeti SB66 is always rated near the top for performance. The aluminum version, as mentioned previously, comes in at 7.5lbs and $3300 MSRP. The carbon version is 6lbs., 1.5lbs lighter and $4450 MSRP. That weight savings works out to about $733 per pound.</p>
<p>Aaron Gwin is racing a Trek Session 9.9. The frame weight of this bike is 7.2 lbs, 34lbs and $8929.99 for a complete bike. This is indeed light for a downhill racing bike, but is only a few ounces lighter than the Foes Shaver. It is useless to compare a downhill bike to a trail/all-mountain bike, especially when the price difference is so large.</p>
<p>If you have a few grand burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead and spend it on a high zoot carbon frame mountain bike. The rest of us who are on a budget will save our pennies for a more affordable aluminum frame that is just as strong and only a bit heavier.</p>
<p>Hard core riders who are tough on their gear and depend on it to handle whatever the trail can throw at them simply demand bikes like the Shaver.</p>
<p>And by the way, the Foes Shaver is made in USA while Trek has off-shored nearly all of its OCLV carbon production.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #6 by Lenovo Carbon Fibre Notebook</title>
		<link>http://www.nonmarketable.com/6-2/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Lenovo Carbon Fibre Notebook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonmarketable.com/?p=120#comment-11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] moments.  Definitely brining the innovation front to companies like Apple. I love new materials (readers would know) so I am excited to see how this turns out, just as long I don&#8217;t need a tube of carbon paste [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] moments.  Definitely brining the innovation front to companies like Apple. I love new materials (readers would know) so I am excited to see how this turns out, just as long I don&#8217;t need a tube of carbon paste [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
