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
Can we table the economics discussion and put it in another thread or something?
Looks like another proto form Envie but that's a weird shape for a carbon rim, isn't it ?
Yeti SB160 with Fox 38/X2 Factory, X1/XX1/GX AXS mix drivetrain (GX chain only GX part to be fair, but still), DT Swiss EX1700 aluminum wheelset
$10,500USD
Transition Spire (carbon) Fox/XT build, Fox 38/X2 Factory, XT drivetrain/brakes, DT Swiss EX1700 aluminum wheelset
$7,000USD
$3,500USD/42% price delta, when AXS is what a $600 upgrade? What am I missing here? Comical pricing. Edit: 50% more expensive than the Spire, math fail. Seriously though this pricing is a head scratcher.
You don't understand bro..... it's Turq!
It's almost thanksgiving so actually it's.......Turquey!
Looks like OneUp is teasing a new dropper on their Facebook?! I'm hoping for an even lower stack height so I can finally run full 180 on my Nomad :D
looks just like the current OneUp post... just in the 34.9mm size for chunky tubes ala Specialized Enduro
Ya, teasing something for the thick bois running 34.9mm, jealous
Oneup have had the 34.9 out since the start of the year, that one doesn't look like its any different, e.g. thicker stanchion (which would mean a re-design of the clamp head)
I thought the Oneups have a dust seal that screws on and off to adjust height with shims. This one looks like it is solid instead.. am I incorrect?
it's just the 34.9mm version with that
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's, and Pivot's are quote good value, and have been for quite some time, but also cater to a different trail user in general who have a difference sense of value outside of purchase price. Generally, I imagine Yeti customers or potential Yeti customers are shopping high end Santa Cruz's and Pivot's against Yeti, not Transition vs Yeti. The only issue I have with your argument, is that modern carbon mountain bikes, even Transition's, are comically expensive to begin with (so throw price, reason, or sense out the window), and also, at the end of the day, Yeti's have never been known for being great value in the dollar vs performance, and yet have been growing exponentially in the past 6 years (well before the pandemic). Their average customer assigns a lot value to brand identity, their undeniable performance, storied race history, and less value to overall purchase price. All that being said, I ride by choice, more cost effective alloy frames with nicer parts as it suits my budget and riding style better. At the end of the day, value is subjective, and while I wouldn't cash out $5000 for a frame, I understand why people do.
Ratio teasing the new Sram mechanical UDH mount made by them I suppose.
Did I miss any discussion about Williams Racing Products/Trinity and their homage to the Honda RN-01 drivetrain?
Weirdly in Australia the Yetis are pretty much the same price as the Transitions.
Summit Cycles and Empire Cycles have the Australian SB160 pre-order pricing up. Builds begin at $12,990 (GX) and run to $17,290 (AXS). Frame only... $7,790. IDGI.
Transition also hasn't had the greatest pricing in Canada in years past, though I haven't looked too closely at them for the past year or so.
̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶I̶'̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶s̶i̶g̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶o̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶(̶l̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶X̶X̶1̶ ̶1̶1̶-̶s̶p̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶E̶a̶g̶l̶e̶)̶
Welp, looks like I need to read and not just use my eyes
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess is they keep this open for easier access and to make fast changes if needed, no matter it would get dirty very fast, but when done, it will probably be closed so that it doesn’t collect dust, mud, debris, water, and whatever else you can think of that the trail can throw at it. All in all, pretty neat thinking from Mrs. Williams and the other 2 guys, not just regarding this concept, but the frame as a whole!
Last time I checked WRP's instagram the "gearbox" was protected in a fiberglass casing, so that you could actually see what's happening in there. Dunno if that's the final design or if that was made for the crankworx show.
The system is claimed to weight 1.4 kg which is quite light compared to a pinion C3 gearbox. I don't know if that number includes the whole transmission tho.
If any here want to see what the Honda RN01s first gearbox iteration was, check European Patent Application EP 1 366 978 A1, it's date of filing was 20-03-2003. It was described as 'Continuously Variable Transmission For Bicycles'. And that, it certainly was / could be.
It was an incredible thing, using 4 (?) link arms and multiple pivot / center points, the repositioning of those creating various 'strokes' of said links, and arcs, thence into rotation.
Why do it on a bicycle? Well, for real world testing of a (relatively) high torque load at what are very low revs, that you want to be as smooth as possible, well, the Human / Machine interface is pretty bloody demanding of perfection. Any problems, would be so very, very obvious, and destructive of smooth gear changes and power transfer. Honda tried variations of it on Motorcycles.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it may have been similar to what was first used on the 1991 RC250AM Auto, which was used to win the 1992 the All Japan MX Series. Though, the RC250AM also had some elements of what was to become the Seamless Gearboxes used in MotoGP. I think it was also raced at least once in a Japanese end of season International, by the late, great Eric Geboers (RIP) . Jeff Stanton may have done so, too.
It was completely different to the later, infinitely simpler ' sliding cluster and derailleur on shafts ' set up of the later versions. I doubt they could have much of a chance at a patent on that, other than 'detail' sections of the mechanism, as that was being done by others. I can't recall the company (started with 'B', and may have been German, in my dim, Old Bear Brain) that Hayes bought the rights to, around the 2005 / 2006 time frame, but, they did nothing with it , to my recollection.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
That would be very surprising to me if they changed their suspension platform. Doesn't make any sense, unless they are looking for a more HP/rearward axle path
It would be unexpected if Atherton changed layouts. They could be trying to simplify their bikes: less expensive and faster to make. CWizzle: was the solid rear triangle still constructed from carbon tubes and ti lugs like all their bikes thus far?
Moving to a traditionally manufactured rear triangle (and maybe links too) with their current printed ti/carbon tube system for front triangle (and varying pivot locations to adjust chainstay lengths for different sizes like a lot of companies do) would reduce the number of printed ti parts and thus allow more frames to be made for a given run time of the printer. Printer is probably a bottleneck. But they still have the cool and customizable printed ti/carbon tubes for front triangle so would still be as desirable and cool as they currently are.
I think the rear triangle was carbon, front triangle was still the lug and tube construction they use on current bikes. Was a fully silver bike also with no branding, pretty sure it had been painted up and it looked very sleek.
It will be interesting to see why they've changed the platform if it makes it to production.
Based on their Instagram post, which look likes their other frames and is tagged AM170, I don't think they are moving away from their current platform. Maybe they were just trying out other designs to compare?
In one of their IG posts they talk about debating whether to have it visible. They decided to use clear lexan since they’re not trying to hide anything.
Very cool, thanks!
In an interview with Martin Whitely, he talks about the RN-01 being seen by Honda as a thought experiment to encourage more creative problem solving from engineers and designers.
With a company like Honda, there’s so much cool stuff that will never see the marketplace.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
SB120 is official
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/2023-yeti-sb120-review
spoiler - expensive (as already noted here). rides well.