They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before...
They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before release but told everyone except them not to talk about it. Weird.
It doesn't look cracked to me, but it does look shoddy. Lines are great though, and the idea of a 27.5/26 inch mullet full suspension bike from a major company is pretty neat.
I think the 27.5/26 is probably a kids/short person version. I think it's unlikely they will offer sizing for anyone over 160cm in that wheel size. I hope there is still a normal sized 140mm option.
Really excited to see Foes develop something that isn't a boomer bike. Their last few years have been pretty sad... they have an opportunity to really shine, with a great brand heritage and US based aluminum fab capability.
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short...
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short and freakishly tall people out there. I prefer how YT does it where there's one size, say 440mm for S, M, L and then 450mm for XL and XXL. Achieves a balanced bike feel and balanced manufacturing cost/cost-benefit to the average consumer who rides a M or a L.
it It's annoying to see "they share the same front triangle" bandied about and prices still increase this much. I had a Ripmo V1 frame for $3k then an AF for $1.8K and the V3 frames are now $3.7K. That's 23% and my pay surely didn't go up 23% in the past few years. Not to use YT again, but I'm pretty sure they share a front triangle between the Decoy MX and Decoy 29 but DON'T shove that fact in your face and instead let their much lower prices do the talking. Cheapest Decoy MX was $5K when it came out in 2018 and it remains $5K to this day (on sale for $4K rn but MSRP is still $5K)
I promise this is tech related! The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe...
I promise this is tech related!
The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe the first to do this) accomplishes both by simply moving the main pivot location in the front triangle back for larger sizes. Each size needs a different front triangle anyways, so this is a slick solution.
Another solution is adjustable dropouts or pivots (like S does). This is probably a tad more expensive than above from the extra complication of a flip chip or whatever, and it will alter the suspension kinematics, primarily by increasing rear travel & raising the leverage ratio in the "long" position.
Related to the new Ibis sharing triangles across not just sizes but models, the downside is compliance tuning. Its easy to make the front triangle stiffer for larger sizes, but then your shared rear triangle is probably going to be too stiff in the smaller sizes and too complaint in the larger sizes. This is worse for sharing the main triangle across models. It has to be overbuild for the shorter travel bike, and that bike will be way stiff and heavier than it needs to be. Since geometry evolution has pretty much settled down, and given what WC riders are experimenting with now at Commencal & Hart on his GT, I think tuned compliance is the next innovation in mountain bikes (Whats old is new again; I'm aware that Cedric Gracia was experimenting with detuned spokes, cut fork crowns, etc a dozen years ago)
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Yes, good, I remember this now, and Yeti too as chrischef mentioned. They do it for cost savings, but I'm curious if any do it for complaince tuning. It puts you in a tough spot when you say "each frame is tuned for the perfect compliance given its travel and riding intentions" because then you're pretty much admitting you resuse molds. GG was the only one brave enough to admit that.
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
yeti has their turq spec carbon frames, also specialized did use different carbon layups on their s-works models in the past.
We Are One does it for some rims. A handful of them share the exact profile/mold but the DH versions just have more material. Their racers can even request different layups/amounts of material depending on their preferences.
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
YT has the Ultra Modulus and High Modulus Carbon frames. Although it appears the difference is a combination of different carbon and more layers in cretain parts of the frame.
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
A select few brands do it on mountain side but using a higher grade carbon to get that lighter weight is common between budget friendly and high end builds on road bikes.
My 2004 Santa Cruz V10 had a floating arm as well. My Transition Blindside had one around 2008. These existed to overcome a variety of brake/suspension induced characteristics.
There was even a company that made them for a variety of bikes. Brake Therapy.
What was old is new again: tall bars, pulley wheels, floating brake arms...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
Pretty sure Foes used floating brakes 20+ years ago. It’s nothing new.
Foes was nearly 30 years ago! The yeti DH-8 lawwill bikes had a mini brake arm, Cannondale too. Interestingly Sunn, Vprocesse and Honda bikes didn't, despite being designs you would think suited it, and being very advanced bikes for their time. (they may have tried it but it certainly wasn't their standard choice)
I think they are a cool idea - combined with chain idlers you can theoretically decouple the drivetrain, braking and wheelpath characteristics and adjust them all independently. Obviously this is a lot of extra complication but they can be a powerful tuning tool!
(for clarification, i was aware foes was using floating brakes arms back in the early 2000's as i was trackside at the races...just thought the new foes and saracen suspension layouts and floaters looked similar-ish)
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
For sure and it's commonly used in aeronautics to tune the stiffness/compliance of composite assemblies (to withstand different loads cases for example). If it's less expensive than using a complete new mold, I'd say it's not negligible (more material, more curing time, maybe more NDT...). It's to be noted that normally you can use a mold up to a certain range of plies (outside this range, you might need to have a new mold)
I've heard today from a knowledgeable person the confirmation that the new DH from Scott will indeed have the shock hidden in the frame (I've understood that it was currently being tested by some factory riders in Andorra). I've not heard about the suspension layout though
I think the 27.5/26 is probably a kids/short person version. I think it's unlikely they will offer sizing for anyone over 160cm in that wheel size. I hope there is still a normal sized 140mm option.
Sam Hill gonna be back on a big bike hopefully
Huge plus on the Gary Fisher appearance! Legends over legends there 👌
Really excited to see Foes develop something that isn't a boomer bike. Their last few years have been pretty sad... they have an opportunity to really shine, with a great brand heritage and US based aluminum fab capability.
I was not aware of this. How?
Put less or more or different layers of carbon into the same tool?
The tool defines the outer surface. What you do inside is up to the person laying up the material.
Kinda like making an aluminium tube with different thickness but the same outer dimensions.
Yes this and how each ply is orientated to the next (typically 45 degrees, 90 or parallel) will also make a difference in stiffness etc.
Do any manufactures actually do this?
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Yeti as well with their TURQ and C/Series frames.
https://yeticycles.com/technology/materials
Yes, good, I remember this now, and Yeti too as chrischef mentioned. They do it for cost savings, but I'm curious if any do it for complaince tuning. It puts you in a tough spot when you say "each frame is tuned for the perfect compliance given its travel and riding intentions" because then you're pretty much admitting you resuse molds. GG was the only one brave enough to admit that.
yeti has their turq spec carbon frames, also specialized did use different carbon layups on their s-works models in the past.
What a wild combination of names I never thought I'd read within one post lol.
We Are One does it for some rims. A handful of them share the exact profile/mold but the DH versions just have more material. Their racers can even request different layups/amounts of material depending on their preferences.
Turq, CC, etc are built using a more expensive and stronger grade of carbon fiber.
They’re not the same material with a different layup.
foes not too dissimilar to saracen when they ran the floater? (i have no idea who did what first and am not trying to say one is copying another)
the more i look at it though, there are plenty of differences 😐
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
Pivot does different carbon lay up for each size
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9KaKQKsRsS/?igsh=MWh4cHU0M3FkbGY5dw==
Don‘t know the guy but he’s got a Status170.
YT has the Ultra Modulus and High Modulus Carbon frames. Although it appears the difference is a combination of different carbon and more layers in cretain parts of the frame.
A select few brands do it on mountain side but using a higher grade carbon to get that lighter weight is common between budget friendly and high end builds on road bikes.
Pretty sure Foes used floating brakes 20+ years ago. It’s nothing new.
And Kona too.
My 2004 Santa Cruz V10 had a floating arm as well. My Transition Blindside had one around 2008. These existed to overcome a variety of brake/suspension induced characteristics.
There was even a company that made them for a variety of bikes. Brake Therapy.
What was old is new again: tall bars, pulley wheels, floating brake arms...
Basically all brands do this, pivot just makes a big deal about it. If a small and XL used the exact same layup, one would ride like crap.
It kinda smells like marketing fluff to me.
You literally have to use a different layup for each size because the carbon fabric cut pattern for a small isn’t enough material to make an XL frame.
Foes was nearly 30 years ago! The yeti DH-8 lawwill bikes had a mini brake arm, Cannondale too. Interestingly Sunn, Vprocesse and Honda bikes didn't, despite being designs you would think suited it, and being very advanced bikes for their time. (they may have tried it but it certainly wasn't their standard choice)
I think they are a cool idea - combined with chain idlers you can theoretically decouple the drivetrain, braking and wheelpath characteristics and adjust them all independently. Obviously this is a lot of extra complication but they can be a powerful tuning tool!
(for clarification, i was aware foes was using floating brakes arms back in the early 2000's as i was trackside at the races...just thought the new foes and saracen suspension layouts and floaters looked similar-ish)
jonny's article on pivot's size-specific layup if anyone is interested - https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/size-does-matter-small-vs-xl-pivot-cy…
For sure and it's commonly used in aeronautics to tune the stiffness/compliance of composite assemblies (to withstand different loads cases for example). If it's less expensive than using a complete new mold, I'd say it's not negligible (more material, more curing time, maybe more NDT...). It's to be noted that normally you can use a mold up to a certain range of plies (outside this range, you might need to have a new mold)
I've heard today from a knowledgeable person the confirmation that the new DH from Scott will indeed have the shock hidden in the frame (I've understood that it was currently being tested by some factory riders in Andorra). I've not heard about the suspension layout though