Definitely not Spec - no SWAT box, and using Maxxis tires.
Who else besides Forbidden have the funky oval seat tube with the clamp at the...
Definitely not Spec - no SWAT box, and using Maxxis tires.
Who else besides Forbidden have the funky oval seat tube with the clamp at the front? Are the house brand grips/saddle/stem recognizable?
It is a specialized I tell you... cable entry’s for internal cables are definitely specialized, chainstay protector straight off the demo, ohlins suspension , sram drivetrain...
It is a specialized I tell you... cable entry’s for internal cables are definitely specialized, chainstay protector straight off the demo, ohlins suspension , sram drivetrain as seen on specialized factory dh , saddle specialized, linkage specialized similar to enduro/demo. Shall I go on? you know it is possible there isn’t a swat box because there is a battery in its place though I see no switches or anything so I doubt that’s the case
In my opinion, It’s highly unlikely that Spec would move to a dual link suspension design after so recently launching the new demo/enduro design. The enduro...
In my opinion, It’s highly unlikely that Spec would move to a dual link suspension design after so recently launching the new demo/enduro design. The enduro isn’t yet due for an upgrade either, although there have been rumors of a battery powered version there of...
I mean.. they did just release a patent of this exact suspension layout (albeit slightly rotated forward version on this bike - the linkage appears to be the same)
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.
@SnusDog the patent picture you posted is _NOTHING_ like the proto we see. The patent is a typical FSR co-rotating linkage design as used by Specialized on all bikes until the single pivot Epic and Stumpjumper. So not is it _NOT_ 'exact' same layout, it's actually nothing alike (except for the dual co-rotating links).
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).
your right its not very accurate. However the general angles of the links can be seen giving a pretty good indication of the instant centre and subsequently the AS and AR. However the travel and LR is pretty much an unknown. I just assumed it was 150mm with a 210x55 shock.
@SnusDog the patent picture you posted is _NOTHING_ like the proto we see. The patent is a typical FSR co-rotating linkage design as used by Specialized...
@SnusDog the patent picture you posted is _NOTHING_ like the proto we see. The patent is a typical FSR co-rotating linkage design as used by Specialized on all bikes until the single pivot Epic and Stumpjumper. So not is it _NOT_ 'exact' same layout, it's actually nothing alike (except for the dual co-rotating links).
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).
Yea fair enough - i missed the lack of chainstay pivot on the proto.
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.
Everyone seems to agree that there is a reasonably high chance that this is a specialized bike. If that is the case I think you’ve all missed the mark and that the photos hide the fact that it uses the same linkage system as the current enduro. This is backed up by their IP drawing which clearly isn’t a dual shirt link bike. If you look carefully just below the top end of the seat stay there could be a pivot hidden in there and it the rear triangle flexes like the stumpy.
Highly unlikely that Specialized moves to a dual short link system.
Everyone seems to agree that there is a reasonably high chance that this is a specialized bike. If that is the case I think you’ve all...
Everyone seems to agree that there is a reasonably high chance that this is a specialized bike. If that is the case I think you’ve all missed the mark and that the photos hide the fact that it uses the same linkage system as the current enduro. This is backed up by their IP drawing which clearly isn’t a dual shirt link bike. If you look carefully just below the top end of the seat stay there could be a pivot hidden in there and it the rear triangle flexes like the stumpy.
Highly unlikely that Specialized moves to a dual short link system.
I agree that its not a spesh. I just can't see it. Its more likely Giant taking a whole new approach to maestro for a new Reign X than it is a specialized, and I don't think Giant would even change their formula that much. For Spesh to switch out to a duel rotating link, I think they'd do all their long travel bikes in their product line in one year with a huge media splash. Switching to a duel link system would also be too close to Giant, and don't think they would risk effectively saying their competitor's suspension system is as good as their own. The big 3 will never share a linkage design since its how they market their bikes as superior to their competitors.
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)
I can't see it having flex stays, the rear looks like a solid triangle. Also one of the main selling points (for me at least, but I think I'm not the only one) for specialized is the swat storage hole which I don't see despite the frame looking, I assume, in its production form.
If I was to guess the unnamed bike shares two things I have seen before, both aesthetic similarities with canyon seat tube and links on the side of the shock.
Pinkbike are saying that they asked BMC and got a response that they 'can't confirm or deny, but that they do have something new coming in the near future' - which pretty much confirms it as a BMC IMO.
Pinkbike are saying that they asked BMC and got a response that they 'can't confirm or deny, but that they do have something new coming in...
Pinkbike are saying that they asked BMC and got a response that they 'can't confirm or deny, but that they do have something new coming in the near future' - which pretty much confirms it as a BMC IMO.
The suspension layout, while a bit wild for them, is nevertheless up BMC's alley - two short co-rotating links. And I'd be VERY surprised if the part going down behind the chain guide is not the vertical part of the swingarm triangle, making it a single piece swingarm mounting to two short links.
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.
I don't know what the CBF patent exactly patents, but that's pretty much the same thing isn't it ? That's what I was saying on the previous page, a short link pointing to the top of chainring, a longer one pointing down and the IC moving on the line created by these 2 points. Maybe CBF's IC is moving a bit less ?
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 ?
bmc loves to try wild things, they made the first two way dropper as far as i know. so why notthey just try something like this susp layout in their new bike?
I don't know what the CBF patent exactly patents, but that's pretty much the same thing isn't it ? That's what I was saying on the...
I don't know what the CBF patent exactly patents, but that's pretty much the same thing isn't it ? That's what I was saying on the previous page, a short link pointing to the top of chainring, a longer one pointing down and the IC moving on the line created by these 2 points. Maybe CBF's IC is moving a bit less ?
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 ?
The link the shock mounts has nothing to do with antisquat characteristics, so it doesn't matter where it's attached. As for the CBF, I don't know what the patent covers (FYI, I think the DW patent just states the IC must end on the lower link at the end of the travel, so the upper link pointing somewhere between the two lower link pivots, which is something certain DW bikes lately do not adhere to...), but the marketing spiel is that the IC moves in such a way through the travel, that the virtual swingarm (rear axle to IC line) rotates around the top of the chainring.
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.
Pinkbike are saying that they asked BMC and got a response that they 'can't confirm or deny, but that they do have something new coming in...
Pinkbike are saying that they asked BMC and got a response that they 'can't confirm or deny, but that they do have something new coming in the near future' - which pretty much confirms it as a BMC IMO.
Top tube on the beige colored GT doesn’t look to be the same shape as any of their current line up, might be the same bike there was a clip of Martin maes on a few weeks ago.
A better look at the lower link:
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/02/25/10537/s1200_STFU.jpg[/img]
A better look at the lower link:
Very specialized like. Similar pivot bolts to current and former bikes. That rocker link is odd tho. Almost looks like a Santacruz but not the same VPP dual link design. Those certainly don’t counter rotate like the current design. Personally I can’t see specialized going away from the 4 bar or FSR style design. It works well under braking and has been their staple for years. Even though they have changed it recently.
I know, two posts in a row. Sorry. I saw a different Ebike at a popular western NC trail center today that was unlike anything I had seen before. It was full carbon with a top tube mounted shock connected to a 4 bar linkage. Very slim down tube but did have a distinct whine to it as the rider pedaled it away. Looked almost like a carbon specialized status e bike but with a different shock layout. Thought it was the Yeti E bike for a second but it did not have the linkage design from the patent a few pages back. Very stumped rn and hope to see it again in the future.
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.