Monday, April 27, 2009

A Shot In the Dark

Jenny Craig ain't got shit on BMX. Around here it's all weight loss, all the time.

Lighter forks.

Lighter cranks.

Like my man Charles Oakley once said, "if it ain't broke, break it." Or at least triple-butt and flute it and drill it out. (What caliber are those cranks, anyway?)

At least the crank update makes sense. Profile cranks have been more or less the same since Eric Rupe was running a JESUS LIVES number plate, and people have been running hollow spindles for years. But the forks? Ain't gonna lie, they scare me. Sub two-pound forks and sub four-pound frames strike me as taking unnecessary risks for minimal gain. I guess that's an arbitrary number, and maybe these forks will be as safe as houses. Maybe two years from now one-pound forks will be the norm, and these will seem laughably heavy.

But somehow I doubt it.

••••••••••

Incientally, if you're looking for the ultimate modern BMX bike, Raleigh's got you covered. Fat tires, tiny seat, no drivetrain, full aluminum construction. All for under $200!

••••••••••


8 comments:

Rob P said...

the gun reference makes those cranks more street.

actually, I'm into this change, as I'll be less tempted to buy expensive and sketchy ti spindles.

pdxbmx said...

Gold.

word verification: chande

Jimmy said...

And what did Profile do as "the first product upgrade in years"?

They added a hole.

natasha said...

Watch Natsha Naked!

Dunk said...

Hands up, who wants to be the one to roadtest those forks? Anyone? No?

Anonymous said...

Hands up, who wants to be the one to Watch Natasha Naked? Anyone? No?

Russ said...

I just hope you'll need to go through a background check to buy Profiles.

ToastyBagels said...

"With the emphasis on lighter BMX and MTB components, Profile Racing is constantly researching and designing lighter parts while maintaining strength."

I find this hard to believe, (or rather convenient to believe, since this kind of bullshit came from Profile).

So they remove some material nearer the axis of deflection, but it maintained in 'strength"? Though the material near the axis doesn't contribute much in reducing deflection/making it stiffer/'stronger', but machining away any remaining material away from the farthest center of the axis doesn't really maintain any strength by a long shot compared to their 'solider' axles.

Where did they study engineering, "Engineering School of Bollocks?"