With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and...
With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and overall progression would give me a better idea of how a bike really feels vs a bunch of graphs-IMO. Of course you can get more info from all those graphs, but they don't seem super useful at a glance to most people IMO.
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the less force required to activate the suspension. If you're reading a ratio graph, then it's the larger the number, like 3 which is the inverse of the above. That only tells part of the story though because force at rear wheel graphs are a more complete picture for suspension activation because that includes the shock's spring rate. This still excludes the behavior exhibited by the shock tune. Overall progression percentage can be calculated by dividing the end value by the start value, subtract 1.
Then we get to the part that there is no right answer, but rather a (large) window of acceptable operation and everyone will have a subjective opinion about what is best.
They'd better be able to pack good value into the builds, they paid for 4/5ths of the tooling and all the R&D years ago. This bike has been available since Fall 2019, yes, it remains excellent, no, consumers should not be paying a premium for it.
Edit: the fact that the value of the Comp is actually pretty good is indeed surprising.
With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and...
With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and overall progression would give me a better idea of how a bike really feels vs a bunch of graphs-IMO. Of course you can get more info from all those graphs, but they don't seem super useful at a glance to most people IMO.
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the...
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the less force required to activate the suspension. If you're reading a ratio graph, then it's the larger the number, like 3 which is the inverse of the above. That only tells part of the story though because force at rear wheel graphs are a more complete picture for suspension activation because that includes the shock's spring rate. This still excludes the behavior exhibited by the shock tune. Overall progression percentage can be calculated by dividing the end value by the start value, subtract 1.
Then we get to the part that there is no right answer, but rather a (large) window of acceptable operation and everyone will have a subjective opinion about what is best.
Yeah, I didn't really understand any of those graphs prior to buying a Cascade link. I didn't commit to buying it before I understood the changes it would be making, based on their comparison graphs. They aren't too hard to wrap your head around, but I feel like they aren't super intuitive either, especially when peoples' graphs have different scales ect.
I couldn't go back to the stock linkage at this point. I think that's down to the increased wheelbase more than the leverage rate though tbh. As you say, there is a wide window of acceptable operation.
Vojo magazine posted a few new things here and there, regarding last Roc d'Azur:
Including a few Polygon """protos""" :
And more interesting, the Beringer ebike (we already knew about their mtb brakes, wasn't aware of the frame development) which is made from cast aluminium. As an absolutely-not-engineer guy I like seeing these kind of attempts on frame material, but some may have another perspective I guess... (regardless of kinematics / geo)
That would be the 2025 Instinct SL according to another forum, is someone able to confirm if that's really the case ?Looks like it's just a...
That would be the 2025 Instinct SL according to another forum, is someone able to confirm if that's really the case ?
Looks like it's just a smaller battery & retuned motor in the existing full power Instinct frame, nothing too exciting.
could be the picture but the angle of the shock looks different. Definitely a different brake mount going on there. And the motor does look smaller. Also, the little knock block under the head tube isn’t there.
Vojo magazine posted a few new things here and there, regarding last Roc d'Azur:Including a few Polygon """protos""" : And more interesting, the Beringer ebike (we...
Vojo magazine posted a few new things here and there, regarding last Roc d'Azur:
Including a few Polygon """protos""" :
And more interesting, the Beringer ebike (we already knew about their mtb brakes, wasn't aware of the frame development) which is made from cast aluminium. As an absolutely-not-engineer guy I like seeing these kind of attempts on frame material, but some may have another perspective I guess... (regardless of kinematics / geo)
With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and...
With suspension kinematics converging in the Crab Quadrant, I'm surprised that companies aren't touting minimum brakeaway force figures. Force to get everything moving, lateral rigidity, and overall progression would give me a better idea of how a bike really feels vs a bunch of graphs-IMO. Of course you can get more info from all those graphs, but they don't seem super useful at a glance to most people IMO.
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the...
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the less force required to activate the suspension. If you're reading a ratio graph, then it's the larger the number, like 3 which is the inverse of the above. That only tells part of the story though because force at rear wheel graphs are a more complete picture for suspension activation because that includes the shock's spring rate. This still excludes the behavior exhibited by the shock tune. Overall progression percentage can be calculated by dividing the end value by the start value, subtract 1.
Then we get to the part that there is no right answer, but rather a (large) window of acceptable operation and everyone will have a subjective opinion about what is best.
There is room for all kinds of crabs. No one objectively better solution, all out crab performance doesn't have to be the goal.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they're advertising them as available with a standard boost option.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Standard 20x110 can be spaced out easily enough. May not be ideal, but things done in a pinch generally aren't.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually broken a 15mm axle? I always thought if anything the rear axle being 12 mm would be more of a problem than the front being 15 and even a 12mm i havnt seen to many issues even rear wheel casing into a rock.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one?
Maybe we'll see some of this on direct to consumer OEM, semi-pro, and staff deal bikes for a bit. I'm certainly in the "never again" camp (I think my feelings about BOS may have come out in this thread once or twice already), but I'd hope my fellow consumer would wait a while before jumping into these, at least at- or close to the generally high MSRP with only the promise that BOS CARES about you because they established the BOS CARE department. Although even I'll admit that's a better name than the BOS ACTIVE DISTAIN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS department.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually...
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually broken a 15mm axle? I always thought if anything the rear axle being 12 mm would be more of a problem than the front being 15 and even a 12mm i havnt seen to many issues even rear wheel casing into a rock.
rear is different as there are (for most bikes) 2 supporting members, chain stay + seat stay, thus axle dimension isn't as important compared to a fork.
Its more so about the mounting interface being wider on a 20mm axle than the axle itself being stiffer, this is what torque caps tried to address.
But as many people much smarter than us, including the Push engineer a page or two back said, it really doesn't matter when including everything else in the system.
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually...
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually broken a 15mm axle? I always thought if anything the rear axle being 12 mm would be more of a problem than the front being 15 and even a 12mm i havnt seen to many issues even rear wheel casing into a rock.
rear is different as there are (for most bikes) 2 supporting members, chain stay + seat stay, thus axle dimension isn't as important compared to a...
rear is different as there are (for most bikes) 2 supporting members, chain stay + seat stay, thus axle dimension isn't as important compared to a fork.
Its more so about the mounting interface being wider on a 20mm axle than the axle itself being stiffer, this is what torque caps tried to address.
But as many people much smarter than us, including the Push engineer a page or two back said, it really doesn't matter when including everything else in the system.
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the strenght i guess.
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the...
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the strenght i guess.
Thank you!
Arguably, many traditional rightside-up forks could benefit from more torsional flex, which is why the 15mm vs. 20mm axle argument never seemed like the end of the world. Traditional forks suffer from excessive fore/aft flex compared to their upside-down brethren, but traditional forks have torsional rigidity to spare. Fox famously engineered more torsional flex into the chassis in 2014 when they released the air-sprung 40, based on their pro rider feedback. If their World Cup pro's need more torsional flex, to me that says something.
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the...
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the strenght i guess.
Arguably, many traditional rightside-up forks could benefit from more torsional flex, which is why the 15mm vs. 20mm axle argument never seemed like the end of...
Arguably, many traditional rightside-up forks could benefit from more torsional flex, which is why the 15mm vs. 20mm axle argument never seemed like the end of the world. Traditional forks suffer from excessive fore/aft flex compared to their upside-down brethren, but traditional forks have torsional rigidity to spare. Fox famously engineered more torsional flex into the chassis in 2014 when they released the air-sprung 40, based on their pro rider feedback. If their World Cup pro's need more torsional flex, to me that says something.
Its MANY pages back, but I made come comment about assuming that a USD (moto style) fork could be torsion-ly (idk how to correctly spell that word) stiff by getting the hub to dropout interface dialed in like in terms of contact area and tolerance wise. Dave Camp Said it was basically impossible to do without charging prices nobody would be willing to pay.
The question is the torsional stiffness good or bad, and there the line lies between good and bad. I'd bet my net worth Fox and RS know what the ideal amount of torsional flex is regardless of dollars, and what the ideal amount is considering dollars also. It would be pretty cool to do a blind test of torsional stiffness between a traditional 40 or boxxer and then incrementally cut material out of the arch until it is gone and see what feels best.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we...
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid...
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
kind of the same reason why we got maxle type thru axles rather than pinch bolt lowers. Gained lighter weight and quicker to remove your wheel ... yay ... Also gained potentially skewed lowers if your hubs/forks are not perfectly matched which will ruin even the best burnished, lubed fork out there. Hopefully as we steer clear from that lightness BS for good, maybe we will get to see floating axles and pinch bolts, as it should be. But that also means, probably going back to 20mm as I am doubtful about the ability to pinch a 15mm axle, tho my Nicolai M-pire used to have a pinch bolt for its 12x165 axle so maybe it is possible with a 15mm axle.
@Primoz: how come did we gain stronger bearings ? I guess you mean for the 20 vs 15mm since the 12mm remained. But at the end of the day you can still get strong bearings on a 20mm axle if wanted, it is just a mater of hub shell sizing really.
You're limited on the outer diameter by the rotor 6bolt BCD or the centerlock interface.
A 15 mm axle gives you the option to use a thicker section bearing which means larger diameter balls which means a higher load capacity.
FWIW, 20 mm Maxle was effectively a floating axle as the DS part of it also had a wedge with a larger diameter, pushing the hub to the NDS dropout.
As for 150 vs 148, 157 is the correct comparison to 148 as 148 uses the 3,5 mm ledges on either side for the hub to sit in the frame, like 142 and 157, while 150 is like 135x12 where the hub drops through the frame.
Even standard hubs on Rock Shox forks compatible with torque cap are a problem for people, let alone rear hubs dropping through the frame besides getting cassette past the derailleur and inserting the rotor in the caliper.
Then, talking about 150 vs 148 (vs 142), you would come to the chainline issues you would have to deal with if you were to choose 150 over 148. 150 vs. 148 has to be looked at as 150 vs 141 regarding hub geometry/layout and chainline.
Regarding pinch bolts, I know I am weird to say the least, but hell no will I have pinch bolts on my fork to take my wheel off. I put a QR Maxle on my Zeb as I will _NOT_ use a hex key to freaking take my wheel off. So much so I had a custom Maxle made to fit into a UDH dropout for the rear. (I also would not be surprised if skewered QR through axles preload the hub more than a bolt on axle does if torque to a value where you can use a multitool to get it free).
You can get that info from rate curve graphs. It shows the starting rate. The smaller the number, in terms of rate so say .333, the less force required to activate the suspension. If you're reading a ratio graph, then it's the larger the number, like 3 which is the inverse of the above. That only tells part of the story though because force at rear wheel graphs are a more complete picture for suspension activation because that includes the shock's spring rate. This still excludes the behavior exhibited by the shock tune. Overall progression percentage can be calculated by dividing the end value by the start value, subtract 1.
Then we get to the part that there is no right answer, but rather a (large) window of acceptable operation and everyone will have a subjective opinion about what is best.
i still have an evil branded bashguard from their first chainguide somewhere.
UDH Enduro is up on their website since this morning and I'm surprised that Specialized packed a very good value in the two builds & S-Works frameset.
Even the entry level Comp build is solid, just need to slap a Charger 3.1 damper in the ZEB Select and you're all set.
They'd better be able to pack good value into the builds, they paid for 4/5ths of the tooling and all the R&D years ago. This bike has been available since Fall 2019, yes, it remains excellent, no, consumers should not be paying a premium for it.
Edit: the fact that the value of the Comp is actually pretty good is indeed surprising.
Yeah, I didn't really understand any of those graphs prior to buying a Cascade link. I didn't commit to buying it before I understood the changes it would be making, based on their comparison graphs. They aren't too hard to wrap your head around, but I feel like they aren't super intuitive either, especially when peoples' graphs have different scales ect.
I couldn't go back to the stock linkage at this point. I think that's down to the increased wheelbase more than the leverage rate though tbh. As you say, there is a wide window of acceptable operation.
Vojo magazine posted a few new things here and there, regarding last Roc d'Azur:
Including a few Polygon """protos""" :
And more interesting, the Beringer ebike (we already knew about their mtb brakes, wasn't aware of the frame development) which is made from cast aluminium. As an absolutely-not-engineer guy I like seeing these kind of attempts on frame material, but some may have another perspective I guess... (regardless of kinematics / geo)
My dude.....we old (I turned 51 last week).
That would be the 2025 Instinct SL according to another forum, is someone able to confirm if that's really the case ?
Looks like it's just a smaller battery & retuned motor in the existing full power Instinct frame, nothing too exciting.
could be the picture but the angle of the shock looks different. Definitely a different brake mount going on there. And the motor does look smaller. Also, the little knock block under the head tube isn’t there.
Ditto to all the above here too!
Almost forgot about that one. Complete example of flash in the pan.
It's different.
Nice KHS!
There is room for all kinds of crabs. No one objectively better solution, all out crab performance doesn't have to be the goal.
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they're advertising them as available with a standard boost option.
While I agree with the wheel availability issue, the reality is, 15mm thru axles should have never been a thing in first place. What did we gain ? 10gr over the from axle ? An additional, weaker standard that doesn't allow us to use our spare wheels on our DH and Enduro bikes. Same goes for 148x12 instead of 150x12 ...
Standard 20x110 can be spaced out easily enough. May not be ideal, but things done in a pinch generally aren't.
Mechanically speaking, nothing is gained with a 15mm axle over a 20mm. What we gained by going with the (mechanically inferior) 15mm axle is the rapid and widespread adoption of thru-axles across all mountain bikes, then road bikes, then gravel and CX bikes. If the axle choices in 2012 (or whenever) were viewed as a binary choice between lightweight XC-oriented QR axles and a heavy DH-oriented 20mm thru axle, I think it would have taken a lot longer for product managers to go out on a limb and spec better forks and axles. 15mm axles gave product managers needed cover (The best of all worlds!! Stiff and light!! No compromises!!) Weight was still king for most MTBers in 2012 in a way that it just isn't anymore. Example: the 2025 35-pound $10000 carbon trail bike from X, Y, Z high-end brand.
And realistically, the difference between a modern 15mm and 20mm axle is negligible. If modern DH fork designers were forced at gunpoint to switch over to 15mm axles, they could easily mitigate the marginal increase in flex by adding material to lowers, crowns, stanchion diameter, or whatever. I think some recent DH forks even offer the option to run 15mm axles? I know this issue has been beaten to death, and I agree that 15mm axles are dumb, but so are people and I think we needed 15mm axles as a bridge to move people over to the side of the river that values performance over weight. It's better over here, on this side of the river. Go ride a 27 pound trail or XC bike from 2011 and see for yourself.
How much of a difference in flex is there actually between a 15 and a 20mm axle? And how many people do you think have actually broken a 15mm axle? I always thought if anything the rear axle being 12 mm would be more of a problem than the front being 15 and even a 12mm i havnt seen to many issues even rear wheel casing into a rock.
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one?
Maybe we'll see some of this on direct to consumer OEM, semi-pro, and staff deal bikes for a bit. I'm certainly in the "never again" camp (I think my feelings about BOS may have come out in this thread once or twice already), but I'd hope my fellow consumer would wait a while before jumping into these, at least at- or close to the generally high MSRP with only the promise that BOS CARES about you because they established the BOS CARE department. Although even I'll admit that's a better name than the BOS ACTIVE DISTAIN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS department.
rear is different as there are (for most bikes) 2 supporting members, chain stay + seat stay, thus axle dimension isn't as important compared to a fork.
Its more so about the mounting interface being wider on a 20mm axle than the axle itself being stiffer, this is what torque caps tried to address.
But as many people much smarter than us, including the Push engineer a page or two back said, it really doesn't matter when including everything else in the system.
That makes alot more sense that its more the mounting interface than the axle itself. That probably changes the flex characteristics more than it does the strenght i guess.
Thank you!
Arguably, many traditional rightside-up forks could benefit from more torsional flex, which is why the 15mm vs. 20mm axle argument never seemed like the end of the world. Traditional forks suffer from excessive fore/aft flex compared to their upside-down brethren, but traditional forks have torsional rigidity to spare. Fox famously engineered more torsional flex into the chassis in 2014 when they released the air-sprung 40, based on their pro rider feedback. If their World Cup pro's need more torsional flex, to me that says something.
Its MANY pages back, but I made come comment about assuming that a USD (moto style) fork could be torsion-ly (idk how to correctly spell that word) stiff by getting the hub to dropout interface dialed in like in terms of contact area and tolerance wise. Dave Camp Said it was basically impossible to do without charging prices nobody would be willing to pay.
The question is the torsional stiffness good or bad, and there the line lies between good and bad. I'd bet my net worth Fox and RS know what the ideal amount of torsional flex is regardless of dollars, and what the ideal amount is considering dollars also. It would be pretty cool to do a blind test of torsional stiffness between a traditional 40 or boxxer and then incrementally cut material out of the arch until it is gone and see what feels best.
My net worth is also very negative at the moment.
We gained stronger bearings.
Ohlins has been purchased by Brembo.
Will we see Brembo dabble in cycling like Ohlins has??
https://www.oppracing.com/product_display/19627-brembo-mountain-bike-br…
kind of the same reason why we got maxle type thru axles rather than pinch bolt lowers. Gained lighter weight and quicker to remove your wheel ... yay ... Also gained potentially skewed lowers if your hubs/forks are not perfectly matched which will ruin even the best burnished, lubed fork out there. Hopefully as we steer clear from that lightness BS for good, maybe we will get to see floating axles and pinch bolts, as it should be. But that also means, probably going back to 20mm as I am doubtful about the ability to pinch a 15mm axle, tho my Nicolai M-pire used to have a pinch bolt for its 12x165 axle so maybe it is possible with a 15mm axle.
@Primoz: how come did we gain stronger bearings ? I guess you mean for the 20 vs 15mm since the 12mm remained. But at the end of the day you can still get strong bearings on a 20mm axle if wanted, it is just a mater of hub shell sizing really.
You're limited on the outer diameter by the rotor 6bolt BCD or the centerlock interface.
A 15 mm axle gives you the option to use a thicker section bearing which means larger diameter balls which means a higher load capacity.
FWIW, 20 mm Maxle was effectively a floating axle as the DS part of it also had a wedge with a larger diameter, pushing the hub to the NDS dropout.
As for 150 vs 148, 157 is the correct comparison to 148 as 148 uses the 3,5 mm ledges on either side for the hub to sit in the frame, like 142 and 157, while 150 is like 135x12 where the hub drops through the frame.
Even standard hubs on Rock Shox forks compatible with torque cap are a problem for people, let alone rear hubs dropping through the frame besides getting cassette past the derailleur and inserting the rotor in the caliper.
Then, talking about 150 vs 148 (vs 142), you would come to the chainline issues you would have to deal with if you were to choose 150 over 148. 150 vs. 148 has to be looked at as 150 vs 141 regarding hub geometry/layout and chainline.
Regarding pinch bolts, I know I am weird to say the least, but hell no will I have pinch bolts on my fork to take my wheel off. I put a QR Maxle on my Zeb as I will _NOT_ use a hex key to freaking take my wheel off. So much so I had a custom Maxle made to fit into a UDH dropout for the rear. (I also would not be surprised if skewered QR through axles preload the hub more than a bolt on axle does if torque to a value where you can use a multitool to get it free).