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
Keep in mind a manufacturer can’t really void a warranty. They can disclaim damage due to particular things. A warranty covers a lot of stuff. If your BB starts falling out that’s not related to fork and should still be covered. But if anything starts happening to the head tube you may be out of luck. Personally I’m a fan of dual crowns because it’s really the best solution to CSU creak. Have run them on bikes that weren’t really supposed to have one and would do it again. Especially if there was a slightly lighter option. Under normal circumstances there is no additional stress on the head tube. The concern is getting crossed up and slamming the stanchion into the side. Personally I think in a scenario like that all bets are off anyway.
Right and will they warranty cracks from stress due to custom links?
You know, this makes me curious. Obviously frame design innovation (geo and suspension designs) is slowing down dramatically in the industry. I wonder if the next big thing will be allowing for frames to have features that make a bronson come with bumpers or have additional features like working with companies to produce after market links (I think about Cascade and the Habit mullet link). Or not I dont know.
Saw the new Rocky Mountain bike in Santa Cruz today, looks like a vpp with the upper link pivot about halfway up and directly in front of the seat tube. Rear triangle looked compact and burly. Two tone paint job, no stickers, angles looked good.
You know the answer to that. Good thing it’s not happening.
It would definitely be cool to work with more companies on aftermarket stuff. I’m not really sure why there’s pushback with links. No one (there are a couple of exceptions) is doing different options for their own bikes. It wouldn’t really make sense from a supply chain standpoint. The volumes aren’t on the same level as complete bikes. More options are always nice to have.
They are crazy quiet too. Was on a ride a few months back with one of the test mules and was generally surprised how quiet that bike was rambling down the mountain...
Wish they would ditch their stupid Ride 9 system though... I believe the new rig it has what they are calling "ride 4" either way it causes more confusion for the end customer than it does any good.
They seem to gradually be moving all their models to Ride-4 (was just the Slayer and ebikes initially iirc): https://bikes.com/pages/ride-4-adjustment-system
I think they're also going to have to get rid of (or redesign) the 2-position axle to accommodate UDH...
Did you notice if it still has adjustable chainstay length and the Ride 4/9 system?
Ride 4/9 and the adjustable chainstays are the whole reason I ride their bikes. Being able to dial in the geometry and progression level to what suits you best is mint in my opinion.
I didn’t. Only got a glimpse when Remi rode by.
Sounds like you’re a little bias, do you have any numbers to back your claims?
Looks like headset adjustable with cups?
This is not a tech rumor so I’m not going to talk about this again. What I will say is we haven’t seen a single case of frame damage due to regular use. Frames are pretty overbuilt. Your wheels are more likely to blow up first. Ask me how I know. Off the top of my head, I can only remember two instances where serious frame damage occurred. One was improper installation and one was incompatible shock. We actually paid for the crash replacement frame for the incompatible shock case because there was a typo on our website that was misleading and made it seem like that shock could have worked. We take all of this very seriously on both a professional and personal level. I do not want anyone to have a broken bike just like I wouldn’t want to have a broken bike. As such we do not sell a single thing that any of us wouldn’t ride personally. Eating our own dog food is life.
I feel like I’m obligated to add a tech rumor now. I think active or semi-active suspension will continue to evolve. I’d stomach that cost before the cost of an expensive wireless drivetrain. Why? Because I can see ways it would aid shock tuning without impacting packaging. You could do things like simulate bypasses for example. You could even use it to combat chasis movement under heavy braking on a bike with super low anti rise since that’s the biggest downfall of low anti rise.
Sounding a little defensive there
You seem to be passive aggressively attacking them, no wonder they are defensive.
Man up and plainly state your issue or STFU.
Youre attacking one of the nicest and most earnest industry commentators on the forum, and complaining when they defend themselves?
Cascade are a true treat to have on this forum and provide lots of insights for all of us.
If you have an actual issue with a product take it up privately with them, not by passive aggressively snarking on their products.
Rumour related, Ride-9 rockymountain was largely useless, most of the adjustments were so damn similar, I would argue you need 4 adjustments at most, long/short CS, and low/high bb/HA adjustment, maybe a progression adjustment too (ignoring that CS affects compresion ratios)
They delete reviews off their website so their credibility is dubious
There is no more ride 9 going forward. The new Altitude and instinct have dropped it and they were the last two with the slayer and element only having ride 4 for the last one or two models.
Dude either post what your got for rumors or say why you don’t like cascade. Did you buy a link and break your bike?
I defer to cc, they are deleting negative reviews with their links off their webpage.
Well… Ill defer to the negative reviews you’re getting on your posts; it sells a compelling argument that we have atleast one tool here.
Now a tech rumour ! Cascade are releasing a new link soon for an S brand bike, and im going to buy it.
They also have one coming out for the new Smuggler; I was told "very soon" about 5 months ago...
Member for 2 days, dudes just trollin'. As our good Captain @sspomer has said before, "rest and they shall too"*
*Not an official vitalmtb, littermag or sspomer quote
Yeah the bike I saw had a set axle position. But again that was a mule so who knows what the end decision was.
The CC links are designed to produce a higher leverage rate increase over stock (more progressive) which in my mind would result in less stress on the frame. The trade off would be more work is required of the damper due to higher shaft speeds, however since the bottom out events are less harsh with more progressive curve, the damper might be better off with cc link as well.
That one is proving tricky because the machining does not scale well. At least easily scale well. It’s still on the way though!
Wouldn't the forces into the frame be identical regardless of the link? If you land a 2m drop, the shock (and fork) are absorbing the force irrespective of the links that drive them. The damper may absorb (dissipate) slightly more force due to shaft speeds but as a whole the total force through the bike is the same regardless of links?
Damn too afraid even on the internet to show proof. Gtfo
Drops to flat are the nicest to visualize because there are so few unknowns. The impact the drop imparts is more of an energy input than a force. m*g*h is the energy that your suspension must absorb in a simplistic sense. Gets really complicated if you try and include your arms and legs plus you can selectively be very rigid or loose. The absorbed energy is the sum of energy stored in the spring and work done by the damper. Again you have some uncertainty because you can tune damping however you want and it’s capable of producing massive forces. The energy that damping and spring take is easily visualized as the area under their force curves. If you go with a similar tuning mindset for both, a more progressive bike uses less travel for a similar size drop/takes a bigger drop to bottom out. From that mindset, the force at full compression with a more progressive link is higher, but that only tells part of the story. By making it harder to bottom out you subject it to fewer very high stress cycles. One way of looking at fatigue is you sum the damage from individual stress cycles on their own. So the higher force at bottom of travel would decrease life expectancy for one cycle but the decrease in super harsh bottom outs would increase life expectancy for that cycle. Force vector plays a roll too, but the angles through which links rotate doesn’t change all that much and bikes just aren’t that optimized compared to lots of stuff (large factors of safety). Personally I think it’s probably a wash, but also the only times I’ve broken frames not from crashing are bottoming out super hard. Fun fact, broke a prototype Crestline VHP front triangle with a lighter carbon layup by massively overshooting the dirt merchant hip. Needless to say the frame was beefed up after that since these things happen. Still rocking the same rear triangle to this day though.
See you all in 2024!