The link posted here is of a webstore that’s selling them - there are different color combinations posted, also Tech 4 V4 sets are released, again in different color combinations. These 30% more power are exactly what most people are complaining about regarding Hope brakes - if it’s true, then finally their brakes will become near perfect.
The link posted here is of a webstore that’s selling them - there are different color combinations posted, also Tech 4 V4 sets are released, again...
The link posted here is of a webstore that’s selling them - there are different color combinations posted, also Tech 4 V4 sets are released, again in different color combinations. These 30% more power are exactly what most people are complaining about regarding Hope brakes - if it’s true, then finally their brakes will become near perfect.
Stil no official release. Not even on the Hope Website. And they are not in stock anywhere. Hence, not released
Apparently, according the Martin, Neko will sell his frames.
captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of innovation is prefaced by the sentence: "Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used...." and I know that the UCI sees MTB as a testing ground for new product innovation, hence no Commissaire or UCI staff has ever asked us if our bikes are prototypes or on sale publicly. All of this is pretty beside the point as Neko's frames will be for sale once he settles on the final design though, so we can end this speculation about whether it's legal under UCI rules or not.
Apparently, according the Martin, Neko will sell his frames.
[b]captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of...
Apparently, according the Martin, Neko will sell his frames.
captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of innovation is prefaced by the sentence: "Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used...." and I know that the UCI sees MTB as a testing ground for new product innovation, hence no Commissaire or UCI staff has ever asked us if our bikes are prototypes or on sale publicly. All of this is pretty beside the point as Neko's frames will be for sale once he settles on the final design though, so we can end this speculation about whether it's legal under UCI rules or not.
This is true, Neko also said it in the latest Downtime Podcast.
Apparently, according the Martin, Neko will sell his frames.
[b]captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of...
Apparently, according the Martin, Neko will sell his frames.
captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of innovation is prefaced by the sentence: "Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used...." and I know that the UCI sees MTB as a testing ground for new product innovation, hence no Commissaire or UCI staff has ever asked us if our bikes are prototypes or on sale publicly. All of this is pretty beside the point as Neko's frames will be for sale once he settles on the final design though, so we can end this speculation about whether it's legal under UCI rules or not.
in his interview with Downtime, Neko indicated he'd likely have a small run built once he gets the design finalized and refined to where he wants it.
he also mentioned that he has a trademark filing submitted for a name, but doesn't want to say anything at least until its approved.
Well here's something new. Paradox claims to have developed a new suspension linkage platform that offers better efficiency with less trade-offs...what do you think? It's going to launch on Kickstarter, here's a link to the campaign where you can see more of the design and read about the thinking behind it...: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paradoxmountainbike/paradox-mounta….
Mongoose and Schwinn used something similar ~15 years ago too. It's not URT. But I think there's a reason why GT dropped the design as soon as the fsr patent expired. Along with Mongoose.
EDIT: just now looked at the Kickstarter... Holy cow, it is an URT!! Color me flabbergasted. Turns out "those that don't know the history are destined to repeat it" is true...
(with the links down there I was sure the BB was on a separate link to the rear triangle)
GT called, they want their design back!
Mongoose and Schwinn used something similar ~15 years ago too. It's not URT. But I think there's a reason...
GT called, they want their design back!
Mongoose and Schwinn used something similar ~15 years ago too. It's not URT. But I think there's a reason why GT dropped the design as soon as the fsr patent expired. Along with Mongoose.
EDIT: just now looked at the Kickstarter... Holy cow, it is an URT!! Color me flabbergasted. Turns out "those that don't know the history are destined to repeat it" is true...
(with the links down there I was sure the BB was on a separate link to the rear triangle)
It is a multilink URT rather than an iDrive (and what Mongoose called their version of it), which has the BB decoupled from the chainstay/swingarm.
The guy has never ridden the design and filed a patent for a new iteration of a horrible idea.
Yeah, I edited the post, probably you didn't catch that yet, sorry for the confusion...
The idea of having a Kickstarter to fund development is... Interesting. I think it's quite well known that the successful projects are those, where you finance production and sell the actual product. Selling hopes and dreams turns out isn't as successful. Even selling hopes and dreams of buying a product once its developed. Here you're just giving your money away for the development with nothing to gain really?
Yeah, I edited the post, probably you didn't catch that yet, sorry for the confusion...
The idea of having a Kickstarter to fund development is... Interesting...
Yeah, I edited the post, probably you didn't catch that yet, sorry for the confusion...
The idea of having a Kickstarter to fund development is... Interesting. I think it's quite well known that the successful projects are those, where you finance production and sell the actual product. Selling hopes and dreams turns out isn't as successful. Even selling hopes and dreams of buying a product once its developed. Here you're just giving your money away for the development with nothing to gain really?
What happens when the project tanks, and he has spent all the cash on prototyping? I would say this is a highway to bankruptcy.
If I understand it the point is to develop the frame and make a prototype. So spending all the money on prototyping is what's being sold here. "Fund my dreams" if you will...
If I understand it the point is to develop the frame and make a prototype. So spending all the money on prototyping is what's being sold...
If I understand it the point is to develop the frame and make a prototype. So spending all the money on prototyping is what's being sold here. "Fund my dreams" if you will...
Why doesn't he just buy some tubing and teach himself to weld?!
While I don't have concrete experience regarding the matter (designing bikes), I am interested in it, but more crucially, I work as a mechanical engineer for an automotive supplier, where I deal with product development on a somewhat architectural and testing level (so not on the mechanical design as in 3D modelling and drawing preparation and/or component manufacturing, buying, assembly, etc.). Therefore it's very logical to me why you would not do it that way, at least I wouldn't (more power to those that would).
The gist of it, its not just a welder. You also need a lot of other components, like headtubes, dropouts, rocker links, pivot locations, etc. It's not just the tubes and a welder. With a hardtail you can buy all the components, so you need to "just" add a frame jig and you're set. Standard frame jigs don't work for a full suspension bike as pivot points are not covered. Plus you need separate jigs for the rear components (chainstays and seatstays or rear triangle, depending on the frame design). Plus you need a lot of machines (lathes and mills) to produce the parts I mentioned before. And to finish off the frame too.
That's on the production side and it makes sense to find someone who can do that quickly and has the tools, it's better to pay someone like that.
If you're interested in suspension design, it makes sense to have that design made by someone who knows what they are doing in order to make the frame strong enough. If you're a beginner, you have no idea what kind of tubes will be strong enough. You could run simulations to be more sure of that, but you need the external loads defined well enough. I'm guessing that's sort of a trade secret for the brands that have this kind of info. So you don't have the data to run any meaningful simulations as well.
If I was developing a suspension system, I'd be finding someone that made me the frame. Just like Neko did. Focus on what you think you will be best at and don't put too much on your plate. Complicate things later, only after you are on top of the first set of things - develop suspension, make protos, acquire or measure loads, optimize design, have it manufactured in series (if that is the goal).
Many companies in Asia make frames these days, I think the main differentiator these days is the suspension design and geometry of the frame (then the spec sheet and price of the bike).
Well here's something new. Paradox claims to have developed a new suspension linkage platform that offers better efficiency with less trade-offs...what do you think? It's going...
Well here's something new. Paradox claims to have developed a new suspension linkage platform that offers better efficiency with less trade-offs...what do you think? It's going to launch on Kickstarter, here's a link to the campaign where you can see more of the design and read about the thinking behind it...: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paradoxmountainbike/paradox-mounta….
Gotta love the already rusted tourney and the tektro brakes with the ohlins and factory suspension. Seems like the build kit for someone who doesn’t like to pedal, so eat use brakes, but likes to occasionally go downhill with their seat up… I dig it!
If you are only focussed on efficiency then yes, perhaps this design will be efficient for pedalling, but it wont absorb bumps at all, and the reach is going to be constantly changing as the BB moves rearward through the travel.
Maybe would be OK for an XC bike but nothing more. Also strange that they essentially admit that the people funding this will get nothing back, they might offer some for sale to Kickstarter backers but they want to license or sell the patent.
I feel like any suspension platform where the bb is connected directly to the rear wheel seems like a fundamental missing of the point? I remember riding my brother's old mongoose and feeling the force of every impact through the pedals.
This was too good not to share. We might have the holy grail of suspension design here
Extremely digressive (more than -100% progressive)
Low anti squat
High anti rise
A surprising amount of pedal kickback for a URT (likely due to the rearward axle path winding up the chain)
Going to give it a solid 3 bananas out of 10 for frame stiffness though. For everyone who loves the word "compliance" I think its a no-brainer design.
This was too good not to share. We might have the holy grail of suspension design here :laugh:
Extremely digressive (more than -100% progressive)
Low anti...
This was too good not to share. We might have the holy grail of suspension design here
Extremely digressive (more than -100% progressive)
Low anti squat
High anti rise
A surprising amount of pedal kickback for a URT (likely due to the rearward axle path winding up the chain)
Going to give it a solid 3 bananas out of 10 for frame stiffness though. For everyone who loves the word "compliance" I think its a no-brainer design.
Well here's something new. Paradox claims to have developed a new suspension linkage platform that offers better efficiency with less trade-offs...what do you think? It's going...
Well here's something new. Paradox claims to have developed a new suspension linkage platform that offers better efficiency with less trade-offs...what do you think? It's going to launch on Kickstarter, here's a link to the campaign where you can see more of the design and read about the thinking behind it...: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paradoxmountainbike/paradox-mounta….
OMG the Tremendously garbage 'Y-bike' is back! Noooooooo!!! haha
New hope tech 4 lever starting to appear, claimed 30% more power over the previous tech 3, same calliper though.
captain23 (6 hours ago)
I believe that this is open to interpretation as the entire section of innovation is prefaced by the sentence: "Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used...." and I know that the UCI sees MTB as a testing ground for new product innovation, hence no Commissaire or UCI staff has ever asked us if our bikes are prototypes or on sale publicly. All of this is pretty beside the point as Neko's frames will be for sale once he settles on the final design though, so we can end this speculation about whether it's legal under UCI rules or not.
he also mentioned that he has a trademark filing submitted for a name, but doesn't want to say anything at least until its approved.
Mongoose and Schwinn used something similar ~15 years ago too. It's not URT. But I think there's a reason why GT dropped the design as soon as the fsr patent expired. Along with Mongoose.
EDIT: just now looked at the Kickstarter... Holy cow, it is an URT!! Color me flabbergasted. Turns out "those that don't know the history are destined to repeat it" is true...
(with the links down there I was sure the BB was on a separate link to the rear triangle)
The guy has never ridden the design and filed a patent for a new iteration of a horrible idea.
The idea of having a Kickstarter to fund development is... Interesting. I think it's quite well known that the successful projects are those, where you finance production and sell the actual product. Selling hopes and dreams turns out isn't as successful. Even selling hopes and dreams of buying a product once its developed. Here you're just giving your money away for the development with nothing to gain really?
That shouldn't take $90k...
The gist of it, its not just a welder. You also need a lot of other components, like headtubes, dropouts, rocker links, pivot locations, etc. It's not just the tubes and a welder. With a hardtail you can buy all the components, so you need to "just" add a frame jig and you're set. Standard frame jigs don't work for a full suspension bike as pivot points are not covered. Plus you need separate jigs for the rear components (chainstays and seatstays or rear triangle, depending on the frame design). Plus you need a lot of machines (lathes and mills) to produce the parts I mentioned before. And to finish off the frame too.
That's on the production side and it makes sense to find someone who can do that quickly and has the tools, it's better to pay someone like that.
If you're interested in suspension design, it makes sense to have that design made by someone who knows what they are doing in order to make the frame strong enough. If you're a beginner, you have no idea what kind of tubes will be strong enough. You could run simulations to be more sure of that, but you need the external loads defined well enough. I'm guessing that's sort of a trade secret for the brands that have this kind of info. So you don't have the data to run any meaningful simulations as well.
If I was developing a suspension system, I'd be finding someone that made me the frame. Just like Neko did. Focus on what you think you will be best at and don't put too much on your plate. Complicate things later, only after you are on top of the first set of things - develop suspension, make protos, acquire or measure loads, optimize design, have it manufactured in series (if that is the goal).
Many companies in Asia make frames these days, I think the main differentiator these days is the suspension design and geometry of the frame (then the spec sheet and price of the bike).
Maybe would be OK for an XC bike but nothing more. Also strange that they essentially admit that the people funding this will get nothing back, they might offer some for sale to Kickstarter backers but they want to license or sell the patent.
Extremely digressive (more than -100% progressive)
Low anti squat
High anti rise
A surprising amount of pedal kickback for a URT (likely due to the rearward axle path winding up the chain)
Going to give it a solid 3 bananas out of 10 for frame stiffness though. For everyone who loves the word "compliance" I think its a no-brainer design.