MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation

Related:
1/11/2024 8:13am
jsray wrote:
From Jacks youchoob. Not sure what YT would be hiding other than a rear shock. Still, something to talk about on a Monday.

From Jacks youchoob. Not sure what YT would be hiding other than a rear shock. Still, something to talk about on a Monday.

IMG 1578.jpeg?VersionId=U LVb8dtMds6oVXHKlou.nyLL

My best guess is a proto of an even smaller waterbottle 🤔

9
Evil96
Posts
805
Joined
8/21/2014
Location
Portogruaro, VE IT
1/11/2024 11:14am
kuzlich wrote:
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

c0f4f5 full.jpg?VersionId=DAUfGgkZWjMAtckstmq

0f4e3f full.jpg?VersionId=XatzJIzJ20VR9kQk.

178f88 full.jpg?VersionId=f4Jh17cySriD6.DLXSaDOL

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

16
9
Kusa
Posts
278
Joined
6/25/2010
Location
CH
1/11/2024 11:17am
Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

Bold = Scott

2
3
jsray
Posts
218
Joined
5/20/2017
Location
Gilbert, AZ US
Fantasy
1/11/2024 2:01pm

Evil website has a pretty significant sale right now. Their bikes will be 4 years old this year.

10
boozed
Posts
666
Joined
6/11/2019
Location
AU
1/11/2024 4:05pm
kuzlich wrote:
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

c0f4f5 full.jpg?VersionId=DAUfGgkZWjMAtckstmq

0f4e3f full.jpg?VersionId=XatzJIzJ20VR9kQk.

178f88 full.jpg?VersionId=f4Jh17cySriD6.DLXSaDOL

Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

So we've established that it's not a bike for users of this forum.  What proportion of riders do all of these perceived inflexibilities realistically affect, though?

It's a shame they've gone this way.  I still love my previous gen Genius, Twinloc included.

2
2
FullSend
Posts
188
Joined
7/14/2021
Location
DE
1/12/2024 3:31am Edited Date/Time 1/13/2024 2:35am
kuzlich wrote:
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

c0f4f5 full.jpg?VersionId=DAUfGgkZWjMAtckstmq

0f4e3f full.jpg?VersionId=XatzJIzJ20VR9kQk.

178f88 full.jpg?VersionId=f4Jh17cySriD6.DLXSaDOL

Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

10
1/12/2024 3:45am
FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use oversized headset cups similar to those used for reach adjustment.

Put the ports just behind the headset bearings but not through the headset. Routing wouldn't be any worse than "standard" internal routing, but the ports on the sides of the head / down tube could be eliminated. 

 

4
3
1/12/2024 6:21am
FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use...

The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use oversized headset cups similar to those used for reach adjustment.

Put the ports just behind the headset bearings but not through the headset. Routing wouldn't be any worse than "standard" internal routing, but the ports on the sides of the head / down tube could be eliminated. 

 

Or just run...external routing

32
4
Dave_Camp
Posts
460
Joined
8/25/2009
Location
CO US
1/12/2024 7:31am Edited Date/Time 1/12/2024 7:33am

I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.  
 

like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings?  Save 10g?  
 

Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.  

14
1/12/2024 7:32am
FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use...

The one way I could see to run cables similar to headset routing without the drawbacks of going through the headset bearings would be to use oversized headset cups similar to those used for reach adjustment.

Put the ports just behind the headset bearings but not through the headset. Routing wouldn't be any worse than "standard" internal routing, but the ports on the sides of the head / down tube could be eliminated. 

 

Or just run...external routing

No argument there. I prefer fully external, but can deal with internal routing. F headset routing. 

1
sspomer
Posts
6115
Joined
6/26/2009
Location
Boise, ID US
Fantasy
1/12/2024 8:16am

has this been posted yet?

 

4
bermed
Posts
80
Joined
6/28/2023
Location
Boston, MA US
1/12/2024 8:17am

So when are we getting more news on the Norco Sight? 

2
1/12/2024 8:19am

Scott is great at selling first mtbs.  Those features that a seasoned mtber considers unnecessary are a selling point to a new customer.  And some people enjoy their bike so they buy another one.  Especially true for average consumers who get the majority of their maintenance done at the lbs that sold them the bike.

anothet brand that does a great job at getting initial and repeat customers is giant.  But they just offer pure value as opposed to abnormal features.

5
blensen
Posts
33
Joined
2/3/2023
Location
Lakewood, CO US
1/12/2024 10:18am
Dave_Camp wrote:
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found...

I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.  
 

like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings?  Save 10g?  
 

Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.  

Tell me more about these bushings... Tried to send a DM but you have them turned off.

jsray
Posts
218
Joined
5/20/2017
Location
Gilbert, AZ US
Fantasy
1/12/2024 10:19am Edited Date/Time 1/12/2024 10:20am
bermed wrote:

So when are we getting more news on the Norco Sight? 

website says they are dropping in Feb, including the Optic

1
dolface
Posts
1674
Joined
10/26/2015
Location
CA US
1/12/2024 10:50am Edited Date/Time 1/12/2024 10:50am
dolface wrote:
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's...

Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's been crickets since then.

iceman2058 wrote:

I’m meant to be receiving some for testing but not sure when exactly…hopefully soon!

Up from the depths! Anyone heard anything?

1
1/12/2024 10:52am
dolface wrote:
Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's...

Has anyone heard anything about Conti releasing a soft or super-soft tire w/ their trail casing? @iceman2058 mentioned it in the comments here (from Eurobike) it's been crickets since then.

iceman2058 wrote:

I’m meant to be receiving some for testing but not sure when exactly…hopefully soon!

dolface wrote:

Up from the depths! Anyone heard anything?

I got nothing. No tires, no news.

7
monarchmason
Posts
291
Joined
5/24/2022
Location
Nevada City, CA US
1/12/2024 10:56am
Dave_Camp wrote:
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found...

I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.  
 

like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings?  Save 10g?  
 

Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.  

blensen wrote:

Tell me more about these bushings... Tried to send a DM but you have them turned off.

If you get a response Id love to read it here or DM.

1/12/2024 11:01am Edited Date/Time 1/12/2024 11:02am
iceman2058 wrote:

I got nothing. No tires, no news.

Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a pallet. Maybe two if they also do the Trail casing in Supersoft.

13
Dave_Camp
Posts
460
Joined
8/25/2009
Location
CO US
1/12/2024 11:05am Edited Date/Time 1/12/2024 11:06am
Dave_Camp wrote:
I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found...

I had frustration with a Scott ransom- they put bushings at the trunninon shock mount and they kept getting wallowed out and developing play.  Eventually found some replacements on McMaster that could be made to work with a file.  
 

like you have this awesome carbon super bike being let down by the only spot they chose bushings. Why they use bushings?  Save 10g?  
 

Scott always does some weird stuff- when 99% of the design is awesome.  

blensen wrote:

Tell me more about these bushings... Tried to send a DM but you have them turned off.

If you get a response Id love to read it here or DM.

IMG 8870.png?VersionId=Dh71KChR53

 

can’t remember details but one of these options should work… measure what you have and I think we cut or filed something down

2
dolface
Posts
1674
Joined
10/26/2015
Location
CA US
1/12/2024 11:11am
iceman2058 wrote:

I got nothing. No tires, no news.

mntnmrtn wrote:
Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a...

Just so they know and to encourage them if they're reading this, when they come out with the Kryptotal front in Enduro casing Supersoft, I'm buying a pallet. Maybe two if they also do the Trail casing in Supersoft.

I'm REALLY hoping for a Kryptotal-Fr Supersoft 2.4" in the trail casing. C'mon Conti, give us an ETA!

5
bizutch
Posts
1446
Joined
8/1/2009
Location
Fletcher, NC US
Fantasy
1/12/2024 11:14am
kuzlich wrote:
More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

More photos of new Ransom. 3 colors, 2 sets on axs, 1 on standard cables.

c0f4f5 full.jpg?VersionId=DAUfGgkZWjMAtckstmq

0f4e3f full.jpg?VersionId=XatzJIzJ20VR9kQk.

178f88 full.jpg?VersionId=f4Jh17cySriD6.DLXSaDOL

Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding,  funneling or tunneling.

19
1
MucBiker
Posts
4
Joined
3/19/2023
Location
München DE
1/12/2024 1:13pm
Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

bizutch wrote:
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...

It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding,  funneling or tunneling.

Canyon did it for quite some time, too

3
1/12/2024 1:20pm

New Rocky Mountain Enduro?

image-20240112222007-2

7
1
1/12/2024 2:29pm
Evil96 wrote:
am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to...

am i the only one thinking this bike is stupid af? it's probably like the bold, so the chainstay does not have holes forcing you to axs, stupid ugly plastic headset and spacer with the cable tourism, shock hidden in the frame, so you get what you get, and of course the stupid remote to do something with it as it's in the frame, so if you wanna customize this bike it's gonna be a ultra pain in the arse, if not impossible to do so, some of the worst bikes in the game

FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

bizutch wrote:
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...

It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding,  funneling or tunneling.

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.

3
1/12/2024 2:58pm
FullSend wrote:
That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as...

That's sort of the frustrating part with Scott. They generally make great bikes. They put a great deal of effort into research and development and as a result you get a super polished bike that just plainly performs great. But then, with their bikes you also have to deal with annoying stuff like headset cable routing and shocks that are hidden in the frame.

Goes to show that they are a company that maybe values engineering a bit too much for their own good. Take the headset routing as an example. From an engineering standpoint it makes a ton of sense. Forgoing the cable ports in the headtube/downtube junction area makes the engineers life much easier. Because where cable ports are normally located is basically the single worst place on the entire frame to have holes in. Comparing the current and the old version of the Scott Spark RC: In the headtube/toptube junction area the current version is 20% stiffer while saving 60g of weight in that area alone - just because they got rid of the cable ports.

In engineering terms, on paper, that's a HUGE win. But wheter the customer actually benefits from any of this, is an entirely separate question. At the end of the day, all that matters to Scott is getting some bullet points for their sales presentation and marketing material out of the entire exercise. And because mtb riders can so easily be hyped up by a bunch of marketing lingo, that's a huge win for them in a financial sense.

For as long as consumers let themselves be tricked and get excited by marketing buzzwords, the bike industry will happily come up with more nonsensical pseudo-innovation to sell.

bizutch wrote:
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...

It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding,  funneling or tunneling.

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.

As a Torque owner I hear ya. FYI, FSA has a headset that works:

https://www.fsaproshop.com/products/no-55r-1-5-558

2
1/12/2024 3:35pm
bizutch wrote:
It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access...

It's sad to me that the industry didn't just do what Guerilla Gravity did with the channel down the frame w/ a cover. Ease of access to all cables in a single groove & no cutting and bleeding,  funneling or tunneling.

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.

As a Torque owner I hear ya. FYI, FSA has a headset that works:

https://www.fsaproshop.com/products/no-55r-1-5-558

Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using  the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last spectral i ended up using the newer Plastic Compression ring with good results - still not a huge fan of the design, its a Shame theres stupid sh1t like that to ruin a good bike.

1
metadave
Posts
1247
Joined
2/15/2016
Location
Revelstoke, BC CA
Fantasy
1/12/2024 3:55pm
New Rocky Mountain Enduro?

New Rocky Mountain Enduro?

image-20240112222007-2

The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it. 

In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...

 

3
1/12/2024 4:18pm
I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames...

I would Be all over a mainstream brand that did this. Canyon went away from it in attempt to go Headset routing on their carbon frames (spectral/torque) but they realised quickly and changed to normal setup, hence why the spectral and torque have that stupid IS52 headset that basically no brands make other than acros.

As a Torque owner I hear ya. FYI, FSA has a headset that works:

https://www.fsaproshop.com/products/no-55r-1-5-558

Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using  the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides On my last...

Yes, ive used both the Ritchey & FSA one - currently using  the FSA in a merida 160 with External stick on guides
On my last spectral i ended up using the newer Plastic Compression ring with good results - still not a huge fan of the design, its a Shame theres stupid sh1t like that to ruin a good bike.

Oh one hand, props to Canyon for abandoning headset routing. Agreed the OE plastic bits are a mystery but once upgraded to FSA I don't see an issue. Outside of it being a non standard size, it seems to me a larger top bearing can only be a "better" thing? A convo for another thread....

2
1
1/12/2024 4:19pm
New Rocky Mountain Enduro?

New Rocky Mountain Enduro?

image-20240112222007-2

metadave wrote:
The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it.  In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't...

The new Altitude, pretty stoked for it. 

In the PB article it says it's Remi's. If it is I'm interested in why that factory fork doesn't have Kashima. Sure it could be a performance elite with factory stickers, but maybe not...

 

Who the hell cares if it's Kashima or not, you're looking at an unreleased bike. And yes, that is Remi. There are some forum posts on the other site with an image of the suspension design of the bike if you are wanting to go looking.

3
6
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation

This forum thread has been locked.

The Latest