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
(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...
(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)
Sorry Spomer yeah I know thats not new for you....I actually had an old Dirt mag close at hand I flicked through to remember some old bikes and thought you could easily written one of the articles in there!
Status 2 140 $3,500 Status 2 140 ZERO $3,000 (size 0, 27.5/26 mini mullet) Status 2 170 $3,500 Status 2 170 DH $4,500 Status 2 170 ZERO $3,000 (size 0, 27.5/26 mini mullet) Status 2 170 Frameset $2,000
In a sense I half expected the 140 status to be the alloy stumpjumper - even though Mr. Hunter's bike is clearly very different than what we started seeing of the status a little while ago. Strange, it seems to me those bikes will have significant overlap aside from some geometry tweaks and the suspension tech features in the new stumpy. I wonder what the opening price stumpy will be? Traditionally they have had a pretty affordable base alloy spec.
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
Sorry Spomer yeah I know thats not new for you....I actually had an old Dirt mag close at hand I flicked through to remember some old bikes and thought you could easily written one of the articles in there!
Designed by a focus group of PB commenters? (that’s neither criticism nor praise)
Also this isn’t a rumor so much as an advertisement.
official status press release - https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/introducing-all-new-status-2
Status 2 140 $3,500
Status 2 140 ZERO $3,000 (size 0, 27.5/26 mini mullet)
Status 2 170 $3,500
Status 2 170 DH $4,500
Status 2 170 ZERO $3,000 (size 0, 27.5/26 mini mullet)
Status 2 170 Frameset $2,000
God damn that’s an ugly paint job
Cant wait till they're $1200 bucks on buy/sell
In a sense I half expected the 140 status to be the alloy stumpjumper - even though Mr. Hunter's bike is clearly very different than what we started seeing of the status a little while ago. Strange, it seems to me those bikes will have significant overlap aside from some geometry tweaks and the suspension tech features in the new stumpy. I wonder what the opening price stumpy will be? Traditionally they have had a pretty affordable base alloy spec.
The ally stumpy is going to have to be good to beat that.
Why this came to mind I don't know: