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
https://www.facebook.com/NEKEN.eu/photos/a.672128019466263/558764523458…
I love this for you
Sometimes more is more, sometimes it's not.
We all want a more comfortable and controlled ride. To that end, many riders want to add all the suspension: tires, rims, spokes, chassis, stem, bar, grips, gloves. The problem is that not all of it is effective at the same frequency or amplitude, and those that act on the same frequency and amplitude are not always of the same quality.
For example, imagine if you wanted to create a DH set-up. You could take two XC air springs and dampers and just stack them on top of each other, or you could use a single, long air spring and damper. The latter has the potential to be better because you avoid redundant components, don't have to double the valve float, etc. This is an example of systems that work on the same amplitude and frequency, so we choose a single, superior system and extend the travel as desired.
Now, compare the action of the fork and tires. We currently have about 8" of fork travel and 2.5" of tire travel. Alternatively, we could have 10.5" of fork travel and just coat our rims in some rubber lugs, or we could have a rigid fork with a 10.5" tire casing. The former alternative is obviously poor because the nearly zero unsprung mass of the tire handles impacts of high frequency and low amplitude that the fork doesn't handle efficiently. The latter alternative is obviously poor because 10.5" of travel needs damping over most of the stroke. Maybe 7.75" of fork travel and 2.75" tires could be better, or 8.25" of fork travel with 2.25" tires, but the current system is clearly close to ideal and better than the extreme alternatives.
As a final example, consider rotating grips (ex. Rev Grips, or simply squishy ones, like Oury). These act in a direction that's not covered by the fork, tires, or a Neken stem. Adding a grip that increases movement around the axis of the handlebar does something the other options don't do.
So, to get back to the Neken stem: it acts on the same axis as the fork and, with such short travel, the flex, float, and stiction affect a larger fraction of its travel than the fork's travel. The stem is effectively the same as adding a little fork travel, but of lesser quality, requires redundant components, and there's more unsprung mass below it. If the goal is to add a little "soft" suspension to the existing fork travel, it's probably sought because the fork is sticky; for the expense of this stem, a fork manufacturer could improve tolerances and/or use exotic materials in the fork to address friction. Or maybe it's to create a layer of suspension with less inertia that reacts more quickly, in which case a simpler system would likely be the better solution. It's unlikely that stacking a telescoping suspension stem on a telescoping suspension fork will create a superior result unless that scales of travel or mass are enormously disparate - likely beyond the situation on a motorcycle and almost certainly beyond the situation on a mountain bike.
I could not fancy any other utility for this design. Even the turning radius would be so wack, steering lock and all...
it worked like a normal stem, but had a little skateboard truck bushing in it to give around 1 inch of bar travel. At the time it was pretty revolutionary and worked pretty good.
I remember going to a skateboard shop in the early 90's, buying out all their bushings to figure out which one worked best. I've been puzzling with suspension ever since
It's 1987 all over again:
I also think it is clearly a different situation than using two short shocks instead of one long one - In that case both shocks carry identical loads. The stem typically carries far less than half of your body weight, and none of the bike weight.
I'd be very interested to read independent reviews - Seems like it could offer a very different experience over rapid bumps where perhaps a fork might get deeper into its travel - and therefore be stiffer.
I can even imagine improvements in traction, as perhaps this stem could further reduce bucking the rider, smoothing out the loading on the ground/tire.
Contacted the company a few years later, as I wanted one for a project and was hoping they had some, and they did! Also got a tour of a part of the manufacturing floor, awesome guys to talk to. And back then they didn't have plans in the near future to go back to MTB, but I suppose now they do.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23063949/specialized-ebike-utility-b…
When it comes to vibrational damping with professional equipment, vibroinsulating foams are used, in the gloves, the grips, etc. Springs could be used as well, by the logic of a tuned mass damper, but that needs to be finely tuned to the application - which frequencies you want to filter out, what the masses of the system are, etc. There is too much variation in cycling world for that to function, even dampers and springs in our forks and shocks often have problems in the bell curves of the gaussian distribution.