I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed.
As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the Vampire Fastarossa.
The STFU, it's positioned bang smack in the middle if the chain where it will whip around the most. It's easiest to support and calm it down there. An idler might help, but it will add some more drag (very little, but still add) and probably won't do that much compared to that STFU placed there.
You could run both - the lower guide wouldn't necessarily damp out the bouncing (or potentially make it worse by shifting to a higher frequency) and...
You could run both - the lower guide wouldn't necessarily damp out the bouncing (or potentially make it worse by shifting to a higher frequency) and maybe they found the STFU was enough stop the chain bouncing off too
That's what i did last year on my bike. I switched to single speed after breaking numerous derailleur and since nowadays I only ride park for fun. My chain tensioner has no clutch so I was looking for a way to quiet down the bike and reduce chain slap. I kept the lower chain guide because I didn't have a N/W chainring. I can confirm a STFU on the bottom of the chainstays works very well since it limits how much the chain can slap downward. The only downside is that the chain would tag on the STFU while the suspension cycled so the rubber gave out after 1 day. I believe BC setup would be superior for this.
2025, the year the DCD comes back. That wasnt in Vitals predictions.
That's basically what Benoit runs. It's an old guide meant for 2x and 3x drivetrain system chain retention in place of the lower roller. Can't remember the bike brand that introduced them. Liteville or Bionicon?
Re: Goldstone's upside down STFU. Just spit ballin here, but maybe that's in play due to the clutch being turned off or detuned to essentially be off. Given how SC's VPP designs have a wide range of chainstay length growth and shrink, the bike may work better without a clutched derailleur. Noticed something similar on my Trance X when I forgot to turn the clutch on. It was loud through chatter but felt like it tracked better. Obv an apple:orange comparison but a bigger bike and hella faster rider may notice it more.
I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed. As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the...
I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed.
As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the Vampire Fastarossa.
The STFU, it's positioned bang smack in the middle if the chain where it will whip around the most. It's easiest to support and calm it down there. An idler might help, but it will add some more drag (very little, but still add) and probably won't do that much compared to that STFU placed there.
Regarding the position of the STFU:
A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something that would contact the material can cause it to resonate faster at the same velocity on both sides of that contact because that contact essentially creates a point around which the whipping motion can pivot.
Guitar strings do it. Wires stretched across distance at tension do it. There are multiple potential resonant frequencies along the length of the material and creating a pivot by limiting motion at one point can cause that material to resonate at those different frequencies in front of and behind that pivot.
I wonder if that would also apply to a bike chain?
It would be super interesting to test a centered STFU vs a slightly off-centered (by like 6% of the entire length) STFU position.
Regarding the position of the STFU:A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something...
Regarding the position of the STFU:
A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something that would contact the material can cause it to resonate faster at the same velocity on both sides of that contact because that contact essentially creates a point around which the whipping motion can pivot.
Guitar strings do it. Wires stretched across distance at tension do it. There are multiple potential resonant frequencies along the length of the material and creating a pivot by limiting motion at one point can cause that material to resonate at those different frequencies in front of and behind that pivot.
I wonder if that would also apply to a bike chain?
It would be super interesting to test a centered STFU vs a slightly off-centered (by like 6% of the entire length) STFU position.
I wondered the same, but there may be less of an effect, because the driving frequency is not constant and unlikely to match the resonant frequency, and the links only approximate a flexible object, meaning they can only oscillate at finite points (every 1/2 inch), rather than being able to form continuous waveforms. The finite length of the links effectively forms a high pass filter, where any oscillation with a wavelength shorter than 4 links becomes impossible. All this goes to say is that yes, offsetting the STFU from the center point of the chain will probably have a favorable effect, but when we shift, the length of the lower chain section changes, so you can't target the same percentage from the center in every gear.
Regarding the position of the STFU:A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something...
Regarding the position of the STFU:
A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something that would contact the material can cause it to resonate faster at the same velocity on both sides of that contact because that contact essentially creates a point around which the whipping motion can pivot.
Guitar strings do it. Wires stretched across distance at tension do it. There are multiple potential resonant frequencies along the length of the material and creating a pivot by limiting motion at one point can cause that material to resonate at those different frequencies in front of and behind that pivot.
I wonder if that would also apply to a bike chain?
It would be super interesting to test a centered STFU vs a slightly off-centered (by like 6% of the entire length) STFU position.
I wondered the same, but there may be less of an effect, because the driving frequency is not constant and unlikely to match the resonant frequency...
I wondered the same, but there may be less of an effect, because the driving frequency is not constant and unlikely to match the resonant frequency, and the links only approximate a flexible object, meaning they can only oscillate at finite points (every 1/2 inch), rather than being able to form continuous waveforms. The finite length of the links effectively forms a high pass filter, where any oscillation with a wavelength shorter than 4 links becomes impossible. All this goes to say is that yes, offsetting the STFU from the center point of the chain will probably have a favorable effect, but when we shift, the length of the lower chain section changes, so you can't target the same percentage from the center in every gear.
I was having some of those same sorts of thoughts but I couldn't figure out how to say it...I ran out of brains!
I won't profess to be a patent expert nor have i read what the Canfield patent covers but we built a few prototypes at Rocky years ago with adjustable main pivots. I believe prior art could be applicable here and nullify Canfield's application.
Here's a Slayer prototype frame built in 2018 IIRC. I have another example of an earlier prototype built with a chip that allowed a low or mid-height main pivot. I'll have to fire up my external drive (cough I'm old..) to get a photo.
They are solid until they aren't, at least when it comes to Bernard Kerr's Phoenix prototype and production bikes and some Firebirds seen over at MTBR. That said, it seems like Pivot has a great warranty policy and CS to take care of customers/riders.
I won't profess to be a patent expert nor have i read what the Canfield patent covers but we built a few prototypes at Rocky years...
I won't profess to be a patent expert nor have i read what the Canfield patent covers but we built a few prototypes at Rocky years ago with adjustable main pivots. I believe prior art could be applicable here and nullify Canfield's application.
Thanks for sharing the proto images.
I had a quick scan of the patent, but not a thorough read. I wonder if the novel aspect they are claiming is the separate/distinct pivot points which we might consider to be unique and different from an adjustment of the location within a small range.
That Rocky Proto is somewhat similarish to the Trek and also the Nukeproof Giga which has an eccentric main pivot that can be adjusted to move the pivot location. The rocky has 4 (or maybe 5) positions , the Trek 3 or more within a range and the Nukeproof potentially infinite change between the min max, but realistically only 2 positions. In all cases the number of pivot locations is possibly infinite within the fixed range of the adjustment.
The vampire patent is more similar to the Lapierre bike, though with 3 rather than 2 positions. The patent may be enforceable for the 3 fixed positions they make a claim for, but not a variable adjustable position (within a set range) based on prior art.
I will try to carve out some time to read the patent application properly, rather than just guessing, I might be way off the mark here.
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined? One could argue that it is the fatigue life of the material for normal use in which case it completely depends on what criteria Pivot design the bikes to. Personally, I find lifetime warranties for the original owner a bit of a marketing gimmick and would much rather have a fixed 5-10 year, transferable warranty so it's completely clear and the next owner also has some cover.
I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed. As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the...
I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed.
As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the Vampire Fastarossa.
The STFU, it's positioned bang smack in the middle if the chain where it will whip around the most. It's easiest to support and calm it down there. An idler might help, but it will add some more drag (very little, but still add) and probably won't do that much compared to that STFU placed there.
Redalp also claim to have patented the floating idler (apologies for the link) https://www.pinkbike.com/u/Redalp/blog/Redalp-Downhill-Bikes-2012.html. I think this predates the i-track patent, which is a really broad piece of patent writing. I pretty sure there'll be a vehicle out there, like a full suss recumbent bike, that has an idler attached to a moving bar and would be considered prior art because it's just a logical step to make in a lot of scenarios.
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined...
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined? One could argue that it is the fatigue life of the material for normal use in which case it completely depends on what criteria Pivot design the bikes to. Personally, I find lifetime warranties for the original owner a bit of a marketing gimmick and would much rather have a fixed 5-10 year, transferable warranty so it's completely clear and the next owner also has some cover.
Plus, lifetime often means "until we release the next iteration and run out of spares.", which can be significantly less than 10 years.
Though it does seem like the EU ban is more "rumblings" from those in the industry than anything official. But we've talked about it on this thread before.
I'm just repeating what's been said before on the EU front, however I do know there are a couple bike releases dependent on SRAM introducing their new brakes first.
The Canefield (Vampire) patent seems to only mention the pivot points being on the seat tube. If you used dual links to create virtual pivot points, maybe you could sneak around this?
Or just be a European brand like lapierre and NGAF
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined...
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined? One could argue that it is the fatigue life of the material for normal use in which case it completely depends on what criteria Pivot design the bikes to. Personally, I find lifetime warranties for the original owner a bit of a marketing gimmick and would much rather have a fixed 5-10 year, transferable warranty so it's completely clear and the next owner also has some cover.
Plus, lifetime often means "until we release the next iteration and run out of spares.", which can be significantly less than 10 years.
They also don't cover wear and tear or fatigue - just manufacturing defects which will almost always show up in the first few years at most so anything beyond 3-5 years isn't super useful. There will also be a whole new set of frame "standards" in 10 years so even if your bike does get replaced, the cost to assemble it again means you may as well just buy a new bike at that point.
I-Track demands their logo even on bikes that aren't for sale. Free to use, but marketed.
As for Canfield, it's the CF3 patent that's used on the Vampire Fastarossa.
The STFU, it's positioned bang smack in the middle if the chain where it will whip around the most. It's easiest to support and calm it down there. An idler might help, but it will add some more drag (very little, but still add) and probably won't do that much compared to that STFU placed there.
That's what i did last year on my bike. I switched to single speed after breaking numerous derailleur and since nowadays I only ride park for fun. My chain tensioner has no clutch so I was looking for a way to quiet down the bike and reduce chain slap. I kept the lower chain guide because I didn't have a N/W chainring. I can confirm a STFU on the bottom of the chainstays works very well since it limits how much the chain can slap downward. The only downside is that the chain would tag on the STFU while the suspension cycled so the rubber gave out after 1 day. I believe BC setup would be superior for this.
2025, the year the DCD comes back. That wasnt in Vitals predictions.
That's basically what Benoit runs. It's an old guide meant for 2x and 3x drivetrain system chain retention in place of the lower roller. Can't remember the bike brand that introduced them. Liteville or Bionicon?
EDIT: Bionicon C.Guide
Anyone knows if DT-Swiss is working on new 240 Hubs?
Spotted: https://www.instagram.com/transalpes.ch?igsh=MWh4bjh6ZDRvYXRueg==
Does that look any different from the current 240? Just had a look at one of mine, and couldnt really spot any difference other than the sticker/logo.
Obviously internals can be different, but outside does not seem to be different.
Re: Goldstone's upside down STFU. Just spit ballin here, but maybe that's in play due to the clutch being turned off or detuned to essentially be off. Given how SC's VPP designs have a wide range of chainstay length growth and shrink, the bike may work better without a clutched derailleur. Noticed something similar on my Trance X when I forgot to turn the clutch on. It was loud through chatter but felt like it tracked better. Obv an apple:orange comparison but a bigger bike and hella faster rider may notice it more.
Regarding the position of the STFU:
A length of material spanning a distance at tension will have a resonant frequency. Cutting it right in half with something that would contact the material can cause it to resonate faster at the same velocity on both sides of that contact because that contact essentially creates a point around which the whipping motion can pivot.
Guitar strings do it. Wires stretched across distance at tension do it. There are multiple potential resonant frequencies along the length of the material and creating a pivot by limiting motion at one point can cause that material to resonate at those different frequencies in front of and behind that pivot.
I wonder if that would also apply to a bike chain?
It would be super interesting to test a centered STFU vs a slightly off-centered (by like 6% of the entire length) STFU position.
I wondered the same, but there may be less of an effect, because the driving frequency is not constant and unlikely to match the resonant frequency, and the links only approximate a flexible object, meaning they can only oscillate at finite points (every 1/2 inch), rather than being able to form continuous waveforms. The finite length of the links effectively forms a high pass filter, where any oscillation with a wavelength shorter than 4 links becomes impossible. All this goes to say is that yes, offsetting the STFU from the center point of the chain will probably have a favorable effect, but when we shift, the length of the lower chain section changes, so you can't target the same percentage from the center in every gear.
I was having some of those same sorts of thoughts but I couldn't figure out how to say it...I ran out of brains!
Pivot officially introduces Lifetime Warranty and a Courtesy Bearing Replacement program:
https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/pivot-cycles-announces-premier-lifetime-warranty-courtesy-bearing-replacement-program
What about seat- or chainstays?
Pivot have solid rear triangles.
woosh
I dunno, its not infrequent that could be serious.
I won't profess to be a patent expert nor have i read what the Canfield patent covers but we built a few prototypes at Rocky years ago with adjustable main pivots. I believe prior art could be applicable here and nullify Canfield's application.
Here's a Slayer prototype frame built in 2018 IIRC. I have another example of an earlier prototype built with a chip that allowed a low or mid-height main pivot. I'll have to fire up my external drive (cough I'm old..) to get a photo.
They are solid until they aren't, at least when it comes to Bernard Kerr's Phoenix prototype and production bikes and some Firebirds seen over at MTBR. That said, it seems like Pivot has a great warranty policy and CS to take care of customers/riders.
But was it publicly posted somewhere? Can it be prior art if it did not see the light of (public) day?
Thanks for sharing the proto images.
I had a quick scan of the patent, but not a thorough read. I wonder if the novel aspect they are claiming is the separate/distinct pivot points which we might consider to be unique and different from an adjustment of the location within a small range.
That Rocky Proto is somewhat similarish to the Trek and also the Nukeproof Giga which has an eccentric main pivot that can be adjusted to move the pivot location. The rocky has 4 (or maybe 5) positions , the Trek 3 or more within a range and the Nukeproof potentially infinite change between the min max, but realistically only 2 positions. In all cases the number of pivot locations is possibly infinite within the fixed range of the adjustment.
The vampire patent is more similar to the Lapierre bike, though with 3 rather than 2 positions. The patent may be enforceable for the 3 fixed positions they make a claim for, but not a variable adjustable position (within a set range) based on prior art.
I will try to carve out some time to read the patent application properly, rather than just guessing, I might be way off the mark here.
Looks like Actofive have a similar setup to the Trek, this bike was launched in October 2024 https://www.actofive.com/en/i-train
The warranty is lifetime of the product for the original owner. The problem I have with this is how is the lifetime of the product defined? One could argue that it is the fatigue life of the material for normal use in which case it completely depends on what criteria Pivot design the bikes to. Personally, I find lifetime warranties for the original owner a bit of a marketing gimmick and would much rather have a fixed 5-10 year, transferable warranty so it's completely clear and the next owner also has some cover.
Redalp also claim to have patented the floating idler (apologies for the link) https://www.pinkbike.com/u/Redalp/blog/Redalp-Downhill-Bikes-2012.html. I think this predates the i-track patent, which is a really broad piece of patent writing. I pretty sure there'll be a vehicle out there, like a full suss recumbent bike, that has an idler attached to a moving bar and would be considered prior art because it's just a logical step to make in a lot of scenarios.
Plus, lifetime often means "until we release the next iteration and run out of spares.", which can be significantly less than 10 years.
How has no one posted this yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63VIuPiX3CA
The Canefield (Vampire) patent seems to only mention the pivot points being on the seat tube. If you used dual links to create virtual pivot points, maybe you could sneak around this?
Or just be a European brand like lapierre and NGAF
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20210380195A1/en
They also don't cover wear and tear or fatigue - just manufacturing defects which will almost always show up in the first few years at most so anything beyond 3-5 years isn't super useful. There will also be a whole new set of frame "standards" in 10 years so even if your bike does get replaced, the cost to assemble it again means you may as well just buy a new bike at that point.
Because it's a fat bike.
or because its a 5 year old video?
also, BITD i knew some trials guys that would bleed their hs33s with baby oil
How about snap?