Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch on the 12th.
In person it’s absolutely striking and looks like nothing else out there. If the frame only price is reasonable then I’ve never been more tempted by a bike.
(If anyone from Atherton bikes wants me to remove the photo I’m happy to, but as it’s been seen by upwards of 100 people today I’m sure it’s fine).
Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch...
Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch on the 12th.
In person it’s absolutely striking and looks like nothing else out there. If the frame only price is reasonable then I’ve never been more tempted by a bike.
(If anyone from Atherton bikes wants me to remove the photo I’m happy to, but as it’s been seen by upwards of 100 people today I’m sure it’s fine).
This might be the bike release I’ve been most excited about in a long time.
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They...
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They run blacked out logos of Maxxis tires as to not offend their sponsors.
Has anyone sharpied Contis lately and ran maxxis instead?
They possibly run quantities high enough to need more than one lowers tool over the lifetime of the fork and can thus justify a different shape for Marzocchi.
Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch...
Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch on the 12th.
In person it’s absolutely striking and looks like nothing else out there. If the frame only price is reasonable then I’ve never been more tempted by a bike.
(If anyone from Atherton bikes wants me to remove the photo I’m happy to, but as it’s been seen by upwards of 100 people today I’m sure it’s fine).
I hope they're a bit more transparent and release the suspension data/graphs with this frame.
Pretty disappointing with their DW6 bikes for the price they cost they don't release the leverage graphs etc.
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They...
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They run blacked out logos of Maxxis tires as to not offend their sponsors.
I hope they're a bit more transparent and release the suspension data/graphs with this frame.
Pretty disappointing with their DW6 bikes for the price they cost...
I hope they're a bit more transparent and release the suspension data/graphs with this frame.
Pretty disappointing with their DW6 bikes for the price they cost they don't release the leverage graphs etc.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Different bridge though, unless the 38 is has the lowers bonded to the bridge.
Here's to hoping it comes with a Grip2, threw one in my...
Different bridge though, unless the 38 is has the lowers bonded to the bridge.
Here's to hoping it comes with a Grip2, threw one in my Z1 coil and it's honestly one of the best forks I've owned.
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi is just a marketing scheme to sell older products. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that it’s old
That’s definitely a Motion Instruments cap with a Quarq decal - you can see the MI logo poking out on either side. Poor Jesse doesn’t even...
That’s definitely a Motion Instruments cap with a Quarq decal - you can see the MI logo poking out on either side. Poor Jesse doesn’t even have Charger 3.1 yet. 😏
Anyone knows when the new charger 3.1 will be released together with the red ZEBs?
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They...
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They run blacked out logos of Maxxis tires as to not offend their sponsors.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood...
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi...
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi is just a marketing scheme to sell older products. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that it’s old
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product for the best price from all of fox/marzoo products ever.
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi...
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi is just a marketing scheme to sell older products. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that it’s old
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product...
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product for the best price from all of fox/marzoo products ever.
You were riding a shock that basically came out over 15 years ago at this point. I actually think the shock is totally fine, but it has a weird dead spot in the beginning that I felt on a few different frames. Keep in mind that for the price of a bomber coil, you could could get a used DHX to that is far superior and every single way get it rebuilt and basically have a brand new shock that is much better than whatever you’re going to get out of the box of the bomber coil. I love that there is pretty decent suspension from Marzocchi for relatively cheap but I’m not sure why you would buy that other than trying to fit into the niche cool guy free ride group that they’re trying to use a brand when you can buy used fox suspension and rebuild it exactly how you want for cheaper.
PS if you can’t tell by my username I’m a huge fanboy of their stuff
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They...
When they have a competing sponsor (Pirelli, Continental, Kenda, Vittoria) and they do not believe the product to be competitive or trust the tire yet. They run blacked out logos of Maxxis tires as to not offend their sponsors.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood...
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people...
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
I agree there are riders and applications where a 35% leverage ratio is great (I rode a CC link on my Gen 1 Megatower for a long time and loved it), but I think most brands don't want to go quite that aggressive in their stock suspension for every customer. CC link customers are a distinct subset of riders, and the PNW is a distinct blend of trail conditions, too. Maybe I should have said 15-35%, but the point is that everyone who isn't Privateer (39%) or Starling (0%?) seems to agree on overall progression somewhere in the middle.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood...
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even...
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant...
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible)...
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
It’s not fair to the Athertons to assume that that’s their view.
Given the super customisable nature of their bikes it’s no surprise they don’t have public graphs.
However they do quite openly offer the option for you “to speak to an expert” if you require further information.
The geometry and sizing measurements are all there on their tech sheets so it shouldn’t be that hard to plug those numbers in and get a basic idea. And isn’t that all the graphs do anyway!
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they...
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…
Love the positive attitude, Jesse
Just got back from a day at Dyfi. This is the production-ready model, two were being tested by journalists in preparation for the official launch on the 12th.
In person it’s absolutely striking and looks like nothing else out there. If the frame only price is reasonable then I’ve never been more tempted by a bike.
(If anyone from Atherton bikes wants me to remove the photo I’m happy to, but as it’s been seen by upwards of 100 people today I’m sure it’s fine).
This might be the bike release I’ve been most excited about in a long time.
Screen shot Fuzz 6HP from the non-drive side
Has anyone sharpied Contis lately and ran maxxis instead?
Different bridge though, unless the 38 is has the lowers bonded to the bridge.
Here's to hoping it comes with a Grip2, threw one in my Z1 coil and it's honestly one of the best forks I've owned.
What stem is that?
Looks like a Canyon OEM stem, G5 Enduro
Why does this exist? Surely with the industry under pressure having extra SKUs can't make sense for Fox 🤷🏻♂️
They possibly run quantities high enough to need more than one lowers tool over the lifetime of the fork and can thus justify a different shape for Marzocchi.
I hope they're a bit more transparent and release the suspension data/graphs with this frame.
Pretty disappointing with their DW6 bikes for the price they cost they don't release the leverage graphs etc.
Is its name Bomber Z5? 🤔
Bruni was riding Kryptotals in Snowshoe.
I wonder about this. Any bike brand has had the opportunity to notice that the way the plots of leverage ratio, antisquat, and antirise are misunderstood in a lot of settings (reviews, forums) might not be a net benefit to them or their customers. Is it transparency if it’s going to be used to build some internet doofus’ imaginary narrative about the bike? Yes and no?
The most fundamental ideas at play when looking at the output of a program like linkage should include 1) it’s a model, and it’s a model of just some of the behavior of the bike suspension. 2) almost every bike company and hobbyist that posts the output uses a style of graph that is visually misleading, the consequence of which is that baseline literacy at interpreting the output is gonna be low. While leverage ratio X travel may be a line, antirise and antisquat have parameters that make them fat bands as the parameters are swept through their ranges. Looking at two thin, bright lines of the plot of bike A vs bike B with all the white space around them gives the impression of distinct difference between them that isn’t necessarily there in the model, let alone out on the trail.
And now we have a cohort of reviewers doing the first ride and then looking at the plots included in the product introduction and saying oh yeah bro this isn’t confirmation bias—i rode the bike and the plots totally match. I think it’s fantasy.
Username checks out.
I would hope that too, but Fox would never release some thing Under the marzocchi name, that’s anywhere near as good as its fox, counterpart. Marzocchi is just a marketing scheme to sell older products. That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It just means that it’s old
Anyone knows when the new charger 3.1 will be released together with the red ZEBs?
More than bruni was. infact a heap of riders were using Blacked out Conti's not just at Snowshoe but other events aswell.
Hear what you're saying but I respectfully disagree that the widespread adoption of public kinematic graphs has been a net negative impact on MTB or even on brands. Yes, there are tons of people who suffer from confirmation bias while bike shopping or bike testing. Most people, in fact. But I think public kinematic graphs have helped make bike design better. Suspension designs are converging in a big way in the last five or so years, corresponding to the same timeframe when graphs have become widespread in product launches. We're mostly in agreement that wild curves in a kinematic graph are bad. Regressive to progressive changes in the same leverage curve are bad, and vice versa. Anti-squat values over 140% start to get really harsh. Very low overall leverage ratios and very high overall leverage ratios are bad. And lastly, very low overall progression (10% or less) or very high overall progression (30%) or more has major downsides. I don't see a lot of variation from these norms anymore, but I saw A LOT of variation from these norms 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
Some of that convergence is a result of independent internal testing and research at the actual bike companies, but I think a lot of that is due to consistent public shaming of bad designs due to consistent bad feedback married to quantifiable data explaining the pattern, instead of just subjective feedback on its own. We are never, ever getting rid of confirmation bias in mountain biking. It's a gear-driven sport, and everyone wants to believe their gear is the answer to their problems, even at the highest levels of racing. So I think introducing data is a net positive.
I get what you say and i agree some sort. But as a bomber coil user i would say that this is probably the best product for the best price from all of fox/marzoo products ever.
You were riding a shock that basically came out over 15 years ago at this point. I actually think the shock is totally fine, but it has a weird dead spot in the beginning that I felt on a few different frames. Keep in mind that for the price of a bomber coil, you could could get a used DHX to that is far superior and every single way get it rebuilt and basically have a brand new shock that is much better than whatever you’re going to get out of the box of the bomber coil. I love that there is pretty decent suspension from Marzocchi for relatively cheap but I’m not sure why you would buy that other than trying to fit into the niche cool guy free ride group that they’re trying to use a brand when you can buy used fox suspension and rebuild it exactly how you want for cheaper.
PS if you can’t tell by my username I’m a huge fanboy of their stuff
I’m not sure I see a downside to progression in the mid 30% range other than small volume air shocks not being good and some people not being able or use full travel. Some of the most well received links we make are around 35%. To date my fastest lap time on predator is on a bike that’s 36%.
The thing I see giving people a hard time as of late is anti rise. There is still a very wide range between different bikes here. Sometimes I get the feeling that people perceive no downside to super low anti rise values. Trouble is at a certain point naming it pro rise would be more accurate. I think there’s a fine line between active suspension under braking and low chasis movement and when people make a choice based on getting super low anti rise it might not actually be doing them any good.
Lastly, here is a recent example where I can see why a brand might not want people immediately analyzing leverage curves. The new Norco Sight has a longer shock then it previously did and, as such, a lower average leverage ratio. This is great. Exactly what I would have hoped for. Looking at the leverage curve, it appears the initial leverage ratio is actually a little higher than the previous version of the sight. This is not a bad thing by any means because it’s still within reason. Trouble is people often interpret a higher initial leverage ratio as a bad change. It’s not necessarily bad at all though. I can see how a brand would think hey maybe we don’t publish leverage curve so that people don’t get hung up on this one detail that they don’t fully understand. Personally I’m partial to putting the information out there and trying to educate people on what the implications might be. But at the same time I understand because one of the things we get lots of push back on is initial leverage ratio.
Argotals actually
Have to agree with this. There is no way I am buying a potentially very expensive purchase without knowing the rear kinematic.
Luckily, I'm a giant nerd/engineer and can use linkageX3.
My norco Range VLT never released any of the kinematic, so I modeled it pre-purchase, Not sure why they don't release the graphs because it's nothing outlandish and just a good old 4 bar. It's 25% progressive which is my goldilocks number, low antisquat (because motor) and minimal pedal kickback. From those graphs I knew it would suit me. Your average punter 1, Doesn't know what suits them and 2, Cant read/understand the graphs lol.
I agree there are riders and applications where a 35% leverage ratio is great (I rode a CC link on my Gen 1 Megatower for a long time and loved it), but I think most brands don't want to go quite that aggressive in their stock suspension for every customer. CC link customers are a distinct subset of riders, and the PNW is a distinct blend of trail conditions, too. Maybe I should have said 15-35%, but the point is that everyone who isn't Privateer (39%) or Starling (0%?) seems to agree on overall progression somewhere in the middle.
This is my.point exactly.
You pay £5000 for an Atherton frame, and they don't include suspension data, meaning independent tuning is harder (but obviously not impossible).
Also LinkageX3 is fine for horst-links etc but for 6 link and VPP/DW bikes you have to be very accurate taking measurements (I don't have the equipment to do so) making it even harder to figure it out yourself.
If the view is that customers don't understand leverage graphs or anti-squat therefore were not going to provide them for fear of being misunderstood. That is blaming your own communication and justifying leaving informed consumers in the dark.
It’s not fair to the Athertons to assume that that’s their view.
Given the super customisable nature of their bikes it’s no surprise they don’t have public graphs.
However they do quite openly offer the option for you “to speak to an expert” if you require further information.
The geometry and sizing measurements are all there on their tech sheets so it shouldn’t be that hard to plug those numbers in and get a basic idea. And isn’t that all the graphs do anyway!
The lack of graphs isn't due to the Athertons, it's coming from Dave Weagle. I've asked Ibis for graphs before when considering their bikes, and they told me they aren't allowed to share them due to the agreement with DW.
As someone who has iterated full suspension bikes with Dave Weagle before- the design matrix he shares with his customers to iterate kinematics is more sophisticated than a few graphs, there are a few more integrative rider-focused parameters that I don’t usually see people talk about on message boards he likes to use to relate feel and function. Dave will tell you those unspoken variables are actually the things to look at to compare bikes.
Dave’s customer service Special Sauce, if you will…