Finn and Loic’s Prototype Demos really standout to me as far the most composed looking bikes. Could possibly be that they both have similar riding styles...
Finn and Loic’s Prototype Demos really standout to me as far the most composed looking bikes. Could possibly be that they both have similar riding styles or maybe it’s the bike?
You can see with the suspension bottomed the linkage running under the bb. To me, looks like an ancilotti-style linkage is hidden, combined with the visible...
You can see with the suspension bottomed the linkage running under the bb. To me, looks like an ancilotti-style linkage is hidden, combined with the visible seatstay pivots.
I think the Demo Proto is a four bar with the pull link to drive the shock, so you get that sexy S shaped leverage curve and they can still get their axle path and anti rise they like.
I'm not sure why theyve kept it hidden for so long, does it really matter that much? Or is it because of the shock their running that they had a cover on even before the current proto frame?
Bruni has the electronic lockout (or whatever it is?) shock. Finn doesn't have the control buttons for it on the bars (correct me if wrong), so presumably his bike doesn't have it. And his bike is still covered so they're also hiding the linkage. And yes, it's a horst wheel path with a pull link and rocker to drive the shock (if short Charles and co are correct in the layout, and I think he is). Has this layout been used on a bike before? I don't recall any. I wonder if they're aiming to patent that suspension layout? I mean, Specialized had the horst patent for years and it was a big part of their brand identity and marketing etc. Perhaps they want that kind of situation back?
Edit: Most companies just put some stretchy fabric over it an call it good. Specialized has got hard plastic and such. And they must completely close their pit area every time a mechanic has to take the cover off to work on something. My point is that they've gone to great lengths to keep it hidden, which might track with them wanting to patent it.
You can see with the suspension bottomed the linkage running under the bb. To me, looks like an ancilotti-style linkage is hidden, combined with the visible...
You can see with the suspension bottomed the linkage running under the bb. To me, looks like an ancilotti-style linkage is hidden, combined with the visible seatstay pivots.
I think the Demo Proto is a four bar with the pull link to drive the shock, so you get that sexy S shaped leverage curve...
I think the Demo Proto is a four bar with the pull link to drive the shock, so you get that sexy S shaped leverage curve and they can still get their axle path and anti rise they like.
I'm not sure why theyve kept it hidden for so long, does it really matter that much? Or is it because of the shock their running that they had a cover on even before the current proto frame?
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape and attachement of the linkage. You could argue the currently public demo uses the same layout - a horst link with a linkage driven shock where a pull link (the vertical one) actuates the shock.
This is just not true, top riders often use revalved or non-stock dampers in both forks and shocks. It is also pretty clear from the Dialed...
This is just not true, top riders often use revalved or non-stock dampers in both forks and shocks. It is also pretty clear from the Dialed series you mentioned. Also, there are really no A-kit forks or shocks sold on the market for DH bikes unlike for MX for example, so it will always be revalved stuff. Also, brands might not want people knowing their riders are not on stock suspensions, but there were people running custom coil sprung boxxers or modified shock bodies in the past (check the NSR website) so..
Its funny you mention that, as that custom kit Nigel (NSR) made was the one I was specifically refering to, and the team got told they...
Its funny you mention that, as that custom kit Nigel (NSR) made was the one I was specifically refering to, and the team got told they are not allowed to do that, and were forced to change.
But yes, this will be my last post on this subject.
Again, go have some beers with mechanics, youll learn a lot.
I gotta be honest, thats a pretty funny thing to say....Go have beers with some WC mechanics to get all the goods.
1. My family has been involved with automotive racing for as long as I can remember, having a "beer" with them would get you nothing but a load of nonsense.
2. I dont trust a single thing from racers (who are generally clueless about setup, etc,) or team owners, PR people, mechanics. Theyre all lying to you, about everything. No one worth their salt is out there giving away trade secrets over beers with someone they dont know. Anything you see in the pits, has been placed for you to see, to drum up hype.
3. Why would I, as a team mechanic, give anyone info that might jeopardize any little advantage my team might have? What are the chances they are trying to sell you a bridge, I know damn well I would, every chance I got. I certainly wouldnt be out there putting my job at risk for a couple beers......
4. You and I can easily go and get ourselves a tuned damper, there are a number of suspension companies that can do it. Along with rental telemetry to test and verify. If youre a team manager, and youre not trying to use everything youve got to your advantage, well, you might be doing your team a disservice.
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape...
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape and attachement of the linkage. You could argue the currently public demo uses the same layout - a horst link with a linkage driven shock where a pull link (the vertical one) actuates the shock.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's patentable, it might be unique enough, not sure? The patent system can be are a minefield of clusterfucks sometimes, in the US anyhow. I'm just speculating as to why they've gone to such lengths to keep it under wraps.
Are we gonna talk about the pads being bottom-loaded or is that not thing people care about?
It's less ideal, but I'd put it way down on my list of things I care about in brakes. The main reason I sold my Codes and went to Hayes is how incredibly light and smooth the lever feel is. I loved the ease of bleeding the Codes, availability of parts, contact point adjust, MatchMaker... but once I felt Dominion levers I had to have them. It must be a lot due to the piston/seal friction and return spring stiffness, because Codes have a bearing mount too.
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this. Maintaining good stiffness and accessing the post bolts fight each other when combined with all that. I’m not a fan of all the random standards, especially considering they aren’t well adhered to (iscg is the worst), but wider post mounts wouldn’t be the worst thing.
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape...
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape and attachement of the linkage. You could argue the currently public demo uses the same layout - a horst link with a linkage driven shock where a pull link (the vertical one) actuates the shock.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's patentable, it might be unique enough, not sure? The patent system can be are a minefield of clusterfucks sometimes, in the...
Yeah, I'm not sure it's patentable, it might be unique enough, not sure? The patent system can be are a minefield of clusterfucks sometimes, in the US anyhow. I'm just speculating as to why they've gone to such lengths to keep it under wraps.
it just needs to be pending, not a patent granted, which would allow for years of development progress ahead of others. By the time others were able capitalize, we would be on the 7 bar linkages, with low pivots....
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this...
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this. Maintaining good stiffness and accessing the post bolts fight each other when combined with all that. I’m not a fan of all the random standards, especially considering they aren’t well adhered to (iscg is the worst), but wider post mounts wouldn’t be the worst thing.
yup, and ever since everyone settled on the post mount standard, brakes almost always use an adaptor anyway........so it wouldn't really be that big of a deal to make callipers with different bolt spacing.
As for bottom loading pads - I take the wheel out to clean the calliper and reset the pistons anyway, so it makes literally no difference. Even with top loading pads, if the old pads were slightly worn getting the new pads in was still a pain if you left the wheel in
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this...
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this. Maintaining good stiffness and accessing the post bolts fight each other when combined with all that. I’m not a fan of all the random standards, especially considering they aren’t well adhered to (iscg is the worst), but wider post mounts wouldn’t be the worst thing.
yup, and ever since everyone settled on the post mount standard, brakes almost always use an adaptor anyway........so it wouldn't really be that big of a...
yup, and ever since everyone settled on the post mount standard, brakes almost always use an adaptor anyway........so it wouldn't really be that big of a deal to make callipers with different bolt spacing.
As for bottom loading pads - I take the wheel out to clean the calliper and reset the pistons anyway, so it makes literally no difference. Even with top loading pads, if the old pads were slightly worn getting the new pads in was still a pain if you left the wheel in
I take the wheel out, but I still watch the work from the hole on the top, while mounted to the bike/fork, are you flipping the bike over? removing the caliper?
Also makes micro setting adjustments easy to be able to see where things are centered
From the other site, interviewing the Norco design team on the new proto downhill bike. Thought I'd share this bit about a patent for a link that adjusts progression without affecting anything else? Don't get how this is possible, but they're smarter than me so who knows?
"We’ve filed two patents based on the suspension layout and kinematic adjustment designed into the new DH race bike... The second patent applies to the method of leverage curve progression adjustment we’ve designed into the bike which allows us to alter the level of support from the rear suspension in isolation without needing to alter shock tune, damper settings, spring rate or shock pressure."
I was scratching my head because I would assume a different leverage profile always necessitates a different shock tune, damper settings, spring rate, etc. Curious on your thoughts.
From the other site, interviewing the Norco design team on the new proto downhill bike. Thought I'd share this bit about a patent for a link...
From the other site, interviewing the Norco design team on the new proto downhill bike. Thought I'd share this bit about a patent for a link that adjusts progression without affecting anything else? Don't get how this is possible, but they're smarter than me so who knows?
"We’ve filed two patents based on the suspension layout and kinematic adjustment designed into the new DH race bike... The second patent applies to the method of leverage curve progression adjustment we’ve designed into the bike which allows us to alter the level of support from the rear suspension in isolation without needing to alter shock tune, damper settings, spring rate or shock pressure."
I was scratching my head because I would assume a different leverage profile always necessitates a different shock tune, damper settings, spring rate, etc. Curious on your thoughts.
Shocks are often tuned off of average leverage ratio so as long as travel remains the same then general tuning would still be accurate. If tune is done for a specific spot in travel then that's out the window as soon as leverage curve changes. Damping force as felt at the wheel is inversely proportional to leverage ratio squared for anyone who's curious.
As for spring rate or shock pressure, increasing progression while travel remains fixed generally results in a higher leverage ratio at the sag point. So to keep the same sag point you'd need to increase spring rate/pressure or you'd be sitting lower. If you say that leverage ratio at sag point remains the same, then increasing progression will decrease travel and then you'd be changing the average leverage ratio around which the shock is tuned. The one way around this would be set it up so that leverage ratio at the sag point is fixed and most the progression change comes from increasing the leverage ratio between sag and top of travel, but that would be a huge limitation in tunability. Also wouldn't be a limitation I would understand. Bottom out resistance is the sum of energy that goes into the spring and energy that is dissipated by the damper so increasing spring rate or damping is the only way to increase bottom out resistance.
I think the Demo Proto is a four bar with the pull link to drive the shock, so you get that sexy S shaped leverage curve and they can still get their axle path and anti rise they like.
I'm not sure why theyve kept it hidden for so long, does it really matter that much? Or is it because of the shock their running that they had a cover on even before the current proto frame?
Bruni has the electronic lockout (or whatever it is?) shock. Finn doesn't have the control buttons for it on the bars (correct me if wrong), so presumably his bike doesn't have it. And his bike is still covered so they're also hiding the linkage. And yes, it's a horst wheel path with a pull link and rocker to drive the shock (if short Charles and co are correct in the layout, and I think he is). Has this layout been used on a bike before? I don't recall any. I wonder if they're aiming to patent that suspension layout? I mean, Specialized had the horst patent for years and it was a big part of their brand identity and marketing etc. Perhaps they want that kind of situation back?
Edit: Most companies just put some stretchy fabric over it an call it good. Specialized has got hard plastic and such. And they must completely close their pit area every time a mechanic has to take the cover off to work on something. My point is that they've gone to great lengths to keep it hidden, which might track with them wanting to patent it.
Seems like Flight Attendant Sid shock and fork are in the works
Makes for damn good marketing, that's for sure.
As for patenting it, I think it could be argued it's not patentable (in the shape we assume it's in). Unless it's specifically the chainstay shape and attachement of the linkage. You could argue the currently public demo uses the same layout - a horst link with a linkage driven shock where a pull link (the vertical one) actuates the shock.
Michelin to bring back the DH16 (from Mondraker DH proto bikecheck on BikeRumor)
Not really tech related, but yeti is going D2C on august 31.
I gotta be honest, thats a pretty funny thing to say....Go have beers with some WC mechanics to get all the goods.
1. My family has been involved with automotive racing for as long as I can remember, having a "beer" with them would get you nothing but a load of nonsense.
2. I dont trust a single thing from racers (who are generally clueless about setup, etc,) or team owners, PR people, mechanics. Theyre all lying to you, about everything. No one worth their salt is out there giving away trade secrets over beers with someone they dont know. Anything you see in the pits, has been placed for you to see, to drum up hype.
3. Why would I, as a team mechanic, give anyone info that might jeopardize any little advantage my team might have? What are the chances they are trying to sell you a bridge, I know damn well I would, every chance I got. I certainly wouldnt be out there putting my job at risk for a couple beers......
4. You and I can easily go and get ourselves a tuned damper, there are a number of suspension companies that can do it. Along with rental telemetry to test and verify. If youre a team manager, and youre not trying to use everything youve got to your advantage, well, you might be doing your team a disservice.
Apologies if this was posted previously, but is Push working on an air shock (or just messing w/ us)?
Yeah, I'm not sure it's patentable, it might be unique enough, not sure? The patent system can be are a minefield of clusterfucks sometimes, in the US anyhow. I'm just speculating as to why they've gone to such lengths to keep it under wraps.
I'm shocked Flight Attendant didn't originate on the SID and SIDLuxe considering remote lockouts are way more common in XC.
Massive price drops coming our way?
Direct to dentist
Direct to Credit
Sram's new dh brake caliper looking production ready (courtesy of Bikerumor)...
Maybe not big news but new damper are coming, they make good bikes at great prices.
https://www.mdebikes.com/damper-coming-soon/?lang=it
Are we gonna talk about the pads being bottom-loaded or is that not thing people care about?
It's less ideal, but I'd put it way down on my list of things I care about in brakes. The main reason I sold my Codes and went to Hayes is how incredibly light and smooth the lever feel is. I loved the ease of bleeding the Codes, availability of parts, contact point adjust, MatchMaker... but once I felt Dominion levers I had to have them. It must be a lot due to the piston/seal friction and return spring stiffness, because Codes have a bearing mount too.
New Trek Slash could be released very soon, maybe as early as on Thursday…let’s see, but apparently in August.
Seen the SRAM brakes on few bikes at Fort William at the weekend, Ronan Dunne was using them…. Pads looked like the loaded in from the bottom.
Is that an issue? when swapping pads you should re-surface the rotor a tiny bit anyway, so you have to remove the wheel anyway?
I've never thought about it, but i'd prefer a solid brake than the option of sliding in pads from the top
Nino has been running the fork and shock (we couldn't see it) in the past two world cup races.
With the existing post mount standard, brakes are at a point where more line pressure and or bigger pistons and pads will necessitate things like this. Maintaining good stiffness and accessing the post bolts fight each other when combined with all that. I’m not a fan of all the random standards, especially considering they aren’t well adhered to (iscg is the worst), but wider post mounts wouldn’t be the worst thing.
it just needs to be pending, not a patent granted, which would allow for years of development progress ahead of others. By the time others were able capitalize, we would be on the 7 bar linkages, with low pivots....
yup, and ever since everyone settled on the post mount standard, brakes almost always use an adaptor anyway........so it wouldn't really be that big of a deal to make callipers with different bolt spacing.
As for bottom loading pads - I take the wheel out to clean the calliper and reset the pistons anyway, so it makes literally no difference. Even with top loading pads, if the old pads were slightly worn getting the new pads in was still a pain if you left the wheel in
weight,
I think the rollout on long travel bikes made a tonne of sense, and likely the largest segment of new, premium bikes being sold
I take the wheel out, but I still watch the work from the hole on the top, while mounted to the bike/fork, are you flipping the bike over? removing the caliper?
Also makes micro setting adjustments easy to be able to see where things are centered
From the other site, interviewing the Norco design team on the new proto downhill bike. Thought I'd share this bit about a patent for a link that adjusts progression without affecting anything else? Don't get how this is possible, but they're smarter than me so who knows?
"We’ve filed two patents based on the suspension layout and kinematic adjustment designed into the new DH race bike... The second patent applies to the method of leverage curve progression adjustment we’ve designed into the bike which allows us to alter the level of support from the rear suspension in isolation without needing to alter shock tune, damper settings, spring rate or shock pressure."
I was scratching my head because I would assume a different leverage profile always necessitates a different shock tune, damper settings, spring rate, etc. Curious on your thoughts.
Shocks are often tuned off of average leverage ratio so as long as travel remains the same then general tuning would still be accurate. If tune is done for a specific spot in travel then that's out the window as soon as leverage curve changes. Damping force as felt at the wheel is inversely proportional to leverage ratio squared for anyone who's curious.
As for spring rate or shock pressure, increasing progression while travel remains fixed generally results in a higher leverage ratio at the sag point. So to keep the same sag point you'd need to increase spring rate/pressure or you'd be sitting lower. If you say that leverage ratio at sag point remains the same, then increasing progression will decrease travel and then you'd be changing the average leverage ratio around which the shock is tuned. The one way around this would be set it up so that leverage ratio at the sag point is fixed and most the progression change comes from increasing the leverage ratio between sag and top of travel, but that would be a huge limitation in tunability. Also wouldn't be a limitation I would understand. Bottom out resistance is the sum of energy that goes into the spring and energy that is dissipated by the damper so increasing spring rate or damping is the only way to increase bottom out resistance.
I dont really get what they are trying to say though?
You can increase support without change spring or damping settings? Yeah every frame you make more progressive via flip chip will do that.