Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards...
Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards and the front wheel travels backwards. You'd need an IMMENSELY rearwards axle path to keep the wheelbase the same through the travel, but then you are shifting the balance forwards (your CoG is moving relative to the wheels).
Front and rear travels doing different things throws a wrench into everything (keep the front extended, squat the rear and the wheelbase just might extend quite a bit actually).
And yes, millimeters, actually quite small
Hear me out, I’m just spit balling here.
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get the fork compressing, and moving back, so effectively shortening the wheelbase, but I thought the idea behind the added stability of HP bikes was a lengthening of the wheelbase (relative to its static, or sagged position)
Is it possible, that the RC isn’t lengthening, it’s just moving further up from the bb while cycling through the suspension (so I guess lengthening if it were to be on the same plane, but they’re not, so the axle path is moving up and forward)
Apologies to everyone for possibly hijacking the thread. I think it’s still slightly relevant, as we are discussing a prototype Spesh frame
Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards...
Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards and the front wheel travels backwards. You'd need an IMMENSELY rearwards axle path to keep the wheelbase the same through the travel, but then you are shifting the balance forwards (your CoG is moving relative to the wheels).
Front and rear travels doing different things throws a wrench into everything (keep the front extended, squat the rear and the wheelbase just might extend quite a bit actually).
Hear me out, I’m just spit balling here.
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get...
Hear me out, I’m just spit balling here.
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get the fork compressing, and moving back, so effectively shortening the wheelbase, but I thought the idea behind the added stability of HP bikes was a lengthening of the wheelbase (relative to its static, or sagged position)
Is it possible, that the RC isn’t lengthening, it’s just moving further up from the bb while cycling through the suspension (so I guess lengthening if it were to be on the same plane, but they’re not, so the axle path is moving up and forward)
Apologies to everyone for possibly hijacking the thread. I think it’s still slightly relevant, as we are discussing a prototype Spesh frame
As I understand it we're measuring the distance between the BB and the rear axle in two ways here:
1) The "chainstay length" is the straight line distance from the BB to the rear axle, which increases throughout travel on most modern designs, because chain growth is positive wherever anti-squat is positive (or vice-versa). VPP is one exception in its implementation where in some cases, the anti-squat goes negative quite close to the end of travel and the chain contracts slightly.
2) The rear centre is effectively the horizontal component of the "chainstay length". If you draw a line on the ground between the BB and the rear axle, it will lengthen initially and then shorten once the axle has (approximately, but for most Horst/FSR designs as near as makes no difference) passed above the height of the pivot and the horizontal component of its motion changes direction.
Hopefully I haven't made any boneheaded mistakes in these explanations...
Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards...
Correct, wheelbase lengthening no, chainstay length yes. The wheelbase going through the travel (equal percentage front and rear) shortens because, overall, rear axle path is forwards and the front wheel travels backwards. You'd need an IMMENSELY rearwards axle path to keep the wheelbase the same through the travel, but then you are shifting the balance forwards (your CoG is moving relative to the wheels).
Front and rear travels doing different things throws a wrench into everything (keep the front extended, squat the rear and the wheelbase just might extend quite a bit actually).
Hear me out, I’m just spit balling here.
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get...
Hear me out, I’m just spit balling here.
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get the fork compressing, and moving back, so effectively shortening the wheelbase, but I thought the idea behind the added stability of HP bikes was a lengthening of the wheelbase (relative to its static, or sagged position)
Is it possible, that the RC isn’t lengthening, it’s just moving further up from the bb while cycling through the suspension (so I guess lengthening if it were to be on the same plane, but they’re not, so the axle path is moving up and forward)
Apologies to everyone for possibly hijacking the thread. I think it’s still slightly relevant, as we are discussing a prototype Spesh frame
As I understand it we're measuring the distance between the BB and the rear axle in two ways here:
1) The "chainstay length" is the straight...
As I understand it we're measuring the distance between the BB and the rear axle in two ways here:
1) The "chainstay length" is the straight line distance from the BB to the rear axle, which increases throughout travel on most modern designs, because chain growth is positive wherever anti-squat is positive (or vice-versa). VPP is one exception in its implementation where in some cases, the anti-squat goes negative quite close to the end of travel and the chain contracts slightly.
2) The rear centre is effectively the horizontal component of the "chainstay length". If you draw a line on the ground between the BB and the rear axle, it will lengthen initially and then shorten once the axle has (approximately, but for most Horst/FSR designs as near as makes no difference) passed above the height of the pivot and the horizontal component of its motion changes direction.
Hopefully I haven't made any boneheaded mistakes in these explanations...
my dudes, as interesting as this is it‘s gettin a bit off-topic IMO. so please discuss it somewhere else if you wanna keep going
Correct. boozed nailed it. The wheelbase looks at the distance between both axles, when squishing both ends equally, it's the horizontal distance. As the BB is moving downwards in that case, the BB to rear axle distance increases, but the horizontal distance decreases. Right angle triangle, Pythagoras, etc.
From EWS Whistler photos on the other site - looks like Richie is also a shock based on the Float X. It’s hard to tell from the photo but it looks different from Jesse’s electronic shock.
From EWS Whistler photos on the other site - looks like Richie is also a shock based on the Float X. It’s hard to tell from...
From EWS Whistler photos on the other site - looks like Richie is also a shock based on the Float X. It’s hard to tell from the photo but it looks different from Jesse’s electronic shock.
it has been mentioned at least 3-5 times in this thread that jesse, richie and ed masters are on this electronic shock.
it has been mentioned at least 3-5 times in this thread that jesse, richie and ed masters are on this electronic shock.
It’s hard to see the details given the resolution of the photo, but I thought it looked different from Jesse’s electronic shock PB recently did an article on. But I could be wrong.
It’s possible Richie has a slightly different version. Seeing the electronic pack on Jesses reservoir, I wondered if frame clearance would be a factor with that design. The medium SB150 may not have the clearance for the same battery placement, given that they are both 230mm shocks.
It’s possible Richie has a slightly different version. Seeing the electronic pack on Jesses reservoir, I wondered if frame clearance would be a factor with that...
It’s possible Richie has a slightly different version. Seeing the electronic pack on Jesses reservoir, I wondered if frame clearance would be a factor with that design. The medium SB150 may not have the clearance for the same battery placement, given that they are both 230mm shocks.
And the Pinkbike Video seems to be a little bit older and the shock might be on a new iteration.
Nsmb have pics of a new Chromag that's at crankworx [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/11/12844/s1200_D487163C_FED7_4CE5_BC3E_F6D510D941AF.jpg[/img]
Nsmb have pics of a new Chromag that's at crankworx
Nsmb have pics of a new Chromag that's at crankworx [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/11/12844/s1200_D487163C_FED7_4CE5_BC3E_F6D510D941AF.jpg[/img]
Nsmb have pics of a new Chromag that's at crankworx
I heard nothing but good reviews from people willing to take a chance on them, a local xc smasher got the long travel bike and said he was crushing some uphill Strava personal bests on the 150 Marin.
But I think in cycling form and function are often on equal ground. It needs to work well and it needs to look like current trends. Even the Tantrum bikes reviewed well if I remember correctly (maybe I'm wrong) but I've only seen one locally on a buy sell. It just didn't look right to people even if the concept is good so they won't jump on it. If it looked like a session or SC, they would have sold like bacon pancakes in a beer garden.
I heard nothing but good reviews from people willing to take a chance on them, a local xc smasher got the long travel bike and said...
I heard nothing but good reviews from people willing to take a chance on them, a local xc smasher got the long travel bike and said he was crushing some uphill Strava personal bests on the 150 Marin.
But I think in cycling form and function are often on equal ground. It needs to work well and it needs to look like current trends. Even the Tantrum bikes reviewed well if I remember correctly (maybe I'm wrong) but I've only seen one locally on a buy sell. It just didn't look right to people even if the concept is good so they won't jump on it. If it looked like a session or SC, they would have sold like bacon pancakes in a beer garden.
I know a couple dudes who got them. They thought they rode fine, but maintenance and inherent failures steered them away eventually.
Devinci testing out a free ride spartan HP? Or a completely new Wilson?
Per Cam Zibo’s instagram [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/12/12848/s1200_8A57F109_9CDE_4F21_B95B_6E1F201E40C9.jpg[/img]
Devinci testing out a free ride spartan HP? Or a completely new Wilson?
Per Cam Zibo’s instagram
Post was taken off his IG or maybe it was from yesterday? Looks interesting!
Devinci testing out a free ride spartan HP? Or a completely new Wilson?
Per Cam Zibo’s instagram [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/12/12848/s1200_8A57F109_9CDE_4F21_B95B_6E1F201E40C9.jpg[/img]
Devinci testing out a free ride spartan HP? Or a completely new Wilson?
Per Cam Zibo’s instagram
That shock looks awfully long. Too much like the Spartan design-wise, but with a shock that long… i’d guess it’s got Wilson’s amount of travel!
The photo she put up of the side view is gone but still had this one up. [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/13/12858/s1200_04AB0FE2_94F7_420B_8DD6_7897FE30FD1B.jpg[/img]
The photo she put up of the side view is gone but still had this one up.
Looks like the standard spartan with maybe a lowered 40. The one Zink posted looks like it uses the DH sized shock with a smaller rocker link.
The photo she put up of the side view is gone but still had this one up. [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/08/13/12858/s1200_04AB0FE2_94F7_420B_8DD6_7897FE30FD1B.jpg[/img]
The photo she put up of the side view is gone but still had this one up.
Looks like the standard spartan with maybe a lowered 40. The one Zink posted looks like it uses the DH sized shock with a smaller rocker...
Looks like the standard spartan with maybe a lowered 40. The one Zink posted looks like it uses the DH sized shock with a smaller rocker link.
Should have clarified, it’s her regular spartan just with a lowered 40 from memory, I just added the photo as a reference if someone wanted to compare to Cam’s
The chainstay can’t actually grow, in terms of length, without the wheelbase growing as well, right. I get the fork compressing, and moving back, so effectively shortening the wheelbase, but I thought the idea behind the added stability of HP bikes was a lengthening of the wheelbase (relative to its static, or sagged position)
Is it possible, that the RC isn’t lengthening, it’s just moving further up from the bb while cycling through the suspension (so I guess lengthening if it were to be on the same plane, but they’re not, so the axle path is moving up and forward)
Apologies to everyone for possibly hijacking the thread. I think it’s still slightly relevant, as we are discussing a prototype Spesh frame
1) The "chainstay length" is the straight line distance from the BB to the rear axle, which increases throughout travel on most modern designs, because chain growth is positive wherever anti-squat is positive (or vice-versa). VPP is one exception in its implementation where in some cases, the anti-squat goes negative quite close to the end of travel and the chain contracts slightly.
2) The rear centre is effectively the horizontal component of the "chainstay length". If you draw a line on the ground between the BB and the rear axle, it will lengthen initially and then shorten once the axle has (approximately, but for most Horst/FSR designs as near as makes no difference) passed above the height of the pivot and the horizontal component of its motion changes direction.
Hopefully I haven't made any boneheaded mistakes in these explanations...
And let's listen to what krabo is saying.
If you think the above product jargon is, er, unique, then you should google what the bike looks like.
I suspect that design doesn't play well with the trend towards steeper seat tube angles; the Wolf Ridge 8 has a 73.5° (effective) seat tube angle. https://www.marinbikes.com/bikes/2020-wolf-ridge-8#geometry
But I think in cycling form and function are often on equal ground. It needs to work well and it needs to look like current trends. Even the Tantrum bikes reviewed well if I remember correctly (maybe I'm wrong) but I've only seen one locally on a buy sell. It just didn't look right to people even if the concept is good so they won't jump on it. If it looked like a session or SC, they would have sold like bacon pancakes in a beer garden.
Per Cam Zibo’s instagram