Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
As stated as well, spec bottle cage, spec chainstay protector, spec seat...
Could easily be a 2022 bike, enduro launched 2019 - would follow a pretty similar 3 ish year pattern for Spec.
Also, to answer the tire question, we all know any serious bike tester isn't going to be running Spec tires out of choice unless they are specifically testing tires only.
I think the headtube diameter is the most interesting thing here... are we finally going to see a new standard for headtubes? 1.75 - 1.5 or something? Forks getting stiffer, everyones crowns creaking - and lets be real its been way too long since we had a new standard that makes everything obsolete... that has to count for something - we all know how this industry works..
made a quick and dirty Linkage model. from what I can see so far the linkage behaves a lot like a Stumpy Evo. Similarities include:
- AR in the 50 to 60 range
- almost no rearward axel path
- firm initial AS with sudden reduction in the negatives
- progressive LR similar to the enduro
anyway it seems like this Dual link follows specialized design philosophy.
Also, the patent is exactly the same as the current Demo and Enduro except for the part where the shock is mounted to the rocker pivot point instead of lower down in a separate bolt.
As for stumpy similarities, I'd be hesitant to draw conclusions from a guesstimate linkage model made based on three blurry photos that do not show one of the two short links at all. WIth dual short links, even more so when they will be positioned this close together, small variations in the positions can have a VERY large influence on the characteristics, possibly even similar in certain parts of the travel with wildly different outcomes in other parts. The general layout should somewhat close to this, there's hardly any other option, but yeah... For one thing, the shock tunnel seems fairly tight and is relatively far back in regards to the front pivot. The way you drew it will raise the shock quite a bit through the travel which might be an issue with the current tunnel. I wouldn't be surprised if the shock will stay much closer to the initial position through the stroke (a bit closer to Santa Cruz's rocker layout).
EDIT:
https://i.imgur.com/6GLAsjX.png
Excuse the ugly scribble:
https://i.imgur.com/rlCkerJ.png
Try something like this maybe:
https://i.imgur.com/zgT8PNe.png
Here is the linkage file if anyone is interested:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QB26ECqbCsvnEW9-3i54jMBX74wDkLwU/view?…
Primoz's tweaks made the shock move in more of a straight line. it also increased the AR a bit and put the AS in the 100 range at sag.
It seems like a really nicely balanced trail bike. I'd probably buy one if mud-clearance doesn't become an issue. My current theory at the moment is that it's a new start up and the builder just threw on the parts they had on hand(Especially considering the crank-brothers wheels that aren't sold OEM). Also it's common for a new company to do a "Never seen before!" suspension design in the hope's of not being accused of being another company with a Horst-link full-sus bike.
Also does anyone know what that weird top-cap is?
Highly unlikely that Specialized moves to a dual short link system.
Also the possibility of it infringing on the DW-link might also come into play maybe? And they'd avoid some else's patents like the plague. (unsure on DW infringement, feel free to prove me wrong)
Maybe just to add, Specialized's layout is also dual co-rotating links if I'm being pedantic, the difference is that one of the links is not short. FSR is in my opinion still the optimal choice for a suspension system, all the parts can be relatively thin while still providing enough load carrying, there's a pivot by the rear axle where any clearance in the bearings and flex in the pivot gives little impact on the system stiffness (as opposed to a dual short link layout), it's a virtual pivot layout, giving you a lot of design freedom and because of the link lengths the characteristics through the travel are fairly neutral and manageable through design.
Except here the shock is linked to the lower link as on the Banshee Legend. So that lower link may be quite triangular, and dropping behind the BB.
I vote BMC as well. They may be more used to XC/trail, but why wouldn't they come back to bigger bikes ?
So it's not the link pointing there, it's the IC moving in such a way that the top of the chainring is always on the line between the IC and the rear axle. Theoretically (maybe) you could then have a lot of lower link placements that do not point towards the top of the chainring at all. Or the top link not pointing down, but forwards. And the IC could move a lot more than it does now, if they still managed to get the same point across.