Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
Being one of those anecdotes, I tend to agree. At the moment I have 0 interest in e-bikes, but I met a few riding buddies this past weekend for a group ride, 2 of them were on their e-bikes (they also have several "regular" bikes), but while we were all getting ready for the ride in the parking lot they were all discussing spec's of e-bikes. It was all "newton meter this, boost mode that, battery hours...blah blah blah." Based on their conversation it seems like all the innovation is in E-bikes these days.
I used to be a bike nerd talking non-stop about geometry and incremental "innovations" even if I'm certainly not a good mountain biker, but I've lost it with e-bikes. I rode mine a lot the first year then got kinda bored (or just had a change on interest in my life).
I like e-bikes, but my experience is pretty much "1st assist level : still sweat a lot but can reach the top without dying / 2nd assist level : still sweat by bombing through the landscape".
At some point the ride was more about seeing how my shimano trail mode was eating the battery faster than the better optimized bosch e-mtb mode
Basically my idea of e-bike riding (trail/AM with a little help to better appreciate the landscapes and mood) doesn't fit most e-bike riders (enduro, go up fast to go down faster), and while they're still talking technology a lot and some of them change bikes every 6 or 12 months, I prefere the regular bikes.
Re: product reviews/tests, with the advent of companies like Laba7, I find it odd that no site/mag/what have ya has invested in one to truly benchmark what the neu & impruved does so much better than the old inferior, suspension wise. Having actual data to show the differences between the incoming and outgoing models would make great content. Imagine a brand shootout where the same bike gets kitted up and ridden, blind to the data sets, the roundtable comes, and then the reviewers are provided the data from the dyno tests. Does X really perform better than Y? How much of a review is due to rider bias to different brands? Having actual figures would shed light on potential bias, enabling us content consumers to have a fuller view of the products. The systems aren't exactly cheap and getting AP to green light that purchase would be a headache certainly, but the boost in legitimacy to the review process would be enormous IMO.
to quote matt walker in his bike check video - "if the rider isn't happy, but the data looks good, you're not going to go fast."
if data were the end-all-be-all for bike design, there'd be a single bike design out there, wouldn't there? to say data X is better than data Y may be nice in a lab, but it could go out the window when dirt changes or rain falls or a rider is more forward-biased or heavier tires are used or [insert infinite variables because mountain biking is awesome].
Ride feel and perception are huge drivers, absolutely. Component considerations too. That's why I think a blind test between 1 rider, 1 bike, multiple parts, and tests on said parts would be interesting. Only thing that gets swapped are the components being tested. Everything else stays the same in a bid to control as many variables as possible. As is, most reviews are one sided and tend toward the feely end of the spectrum. Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's 100% right either. There isn't going to be a 100% effective way to review anything, but providing data sets is of value. Manufacturing is a game of chasing 100% perfection while being keenly aware that 100% perfection will never be reached. Reviews can share that game plan. To wit, UK site some time ago did a hex key shoot out. Super exciting content there, right? Slow news week maybe. But it was valuable as they went and measured every key from a set from a number of major players to find out how close to claimed sizes they were, which in turn affects how the tool bites the head and/or potentially damages the interface. I've used crap tools before (as we all have) and some of those crap units were of perceived high quality name brand jobbers. A review where an item feels great in hand (feelies) but is undersized (data driven) provides valuable context to the reader/buying public.
I’m not sure why so much focus on speed here. A lot of marketing doesn’t talk about speed. I change bikes for comfort (fit, suspension, ride feel, and pedal feedback) and for more capability (geo, suspension).
I don’t generally hear people switching bikes because they are faster.
haha hex key test! (i find myself getting sucked into vids like that : )
i'm all in for blind testing if it's possible. i think that'd be the most fun and interesting for sure!
Its funny, those I've talked to who have used data acquisition a lot tend to scoff at it or at minimum discount it heavily. Those who have never used data acquisition are the ones who tend to really champion it.
Sports are psychological in nature. What is going on between the ears matters more than what is going on with the 1s and 0s. Hell, the 1s and 0s are often wrong in the first place. Data is noisy, hard to parse, and sometimes (very) misleading.
Paging Chase Sexton. Chase Sexton, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
re: the psychology part of riding
I happen to be friends with Marla Streb, I've known her and her husband for almost 20 years, I was actually at her house in Costa Rica just 2 weeks ago, I even borrowed one of her daughter's bikes and did a 15-mile ride with her one of the days. I'm a bike nerd, including a racing nerd, especially the late 90's - mid 2000's era which were my formative years. Having ridden with Marla countless times, it always amazed me how little she knew (or cared) about new tech, standards, tire compounds etc. I remember she and I were at an Enduro race years ago and I noticed right before the 5th stage that her rear tire was on backwards. I brought this up to her and even offered to switch it around for her trailside before we started the last stage. She said "well it seems to be working" and proceeded to smoke me and everyone else by like 20 seconds on the stage.
Consider me the exception. I enjoyed getting my Poindexter on when testing prototypes to first run finished products. I also liked arguing with the engineers when they would say something along the lines of not seeing certain failures in lab testing. That to me pointed out the testing protocols were incorrect. It took a lot of back and forth, but usually a change was made, the tests started to better reflect the data coming from product in the field, and that drove improvement.
Yup that's totally true - there's no such thing as a "correct" set of numbers when collecting data - they are all just pieces to a puzzle and each bike/rider is going to be slightly different. There are definitely people who focus on make the "right" numbers but that rarely translates to a happy or fast rider. What the rider is feeling and how comfortable they are is always the driving factor - if you are doing data properly you might be able to connect some kind of metric to their feedback and use that to guide your changes, but not the other way around.
It reminds me a bit of photographers and "chimping" (I don't know if that workd gets used any more) but when a photographer is hunched over looking at his screen the whole time instead of engaging with and directing their subject, its way less likely to come out with a good image. Data is very similar - you need to be conscious of not getting sucked in to chasing numbers and keep an eye on the bigger picture. Its unfortunate the perception is often that data isn't useful - it very much is, but isn't used as effectively as it could be.
Thats how it should be! The process should be something like-
Collect data --> create some labs tests --> develop a product --> collect more data --> refine the tests --> make a better product --> repeat
instead its often
make a product --> product breaks --> well clearly you were riding wrong --> product keeps breaking --> know idea why --> release another product with no clue what was wrong with the previous one (NOT NAMING ANY NAMES)
I couldn't agree more that I don't care at all about which one of a group of bikes, all set up particular ways, is fastest on one track for one rider. And I don't have any interest in y'all trying to use DAQ to tell me what's "better."
But I'd be hella interested in y'all using DAQ to ferret out how things are different. Take a new high-end fork, install DAQ, and do some laps with HSC all the way closed and all the way open and see what differences there are in the data. Or if you tested one fork against another and all the testers thought one was plusher, what are the differences in the data. Is the plusher fork riding higher in its travel, using more travel on bigger hits, etc. Or throw DAQ on a gearbox bike vs a traditional drivetrain and see how the difference in unsprung weight shows up in the data.
In a lot of highly technique-based sports, people talk about the difference between feel and real. I think DAQ could shed some light on that even if it can't easily answer questons about "better" or "optimal."
Reading the news about Ari opening up a "satellite" location today:
Are there any good resources on lab test baselines? Or does every manufacturer have to go through the process on their own?
Regarding feel and data, true, it's motorsports (cars), but we draw parallels all the time. I remember watching a show where the driver didn't gel with the setup that was deemed the fastest. They modified it to the drivers liking, sent him out, he felt good, came back in and they adjusted it even more. 'is it good?' 'yes!'. They told him they made more difference in his direction, but actually went back to the fast setup he didn't like initially.
Yes, confidence and feel is VERY important, but it can also be manufactured as feel can quite often lie to us (or us to ourselves regarding what we feel).
I don't know of any lab test baselines - the paper Vorsprung put out on shock mounting is one of the few public resources for guiding bike design, but beyond that I think most companies make it up themselves. The big taiwan factories seem to have reasonable internal testing standards that bike companies can use if they want to but i dont have a lot of insight to their exact processes.
The other thing you touched on is one of the interesting psychological parts of testing! Each rider is different and what makes them feel comfortable won't be the same as the next person. I was hearing about a top rider yesterday who is apparently totally guided by data - they will look at whatever is fastest on paper and use that, regardless of how it feels to them. That's pretty rare to see in my experience but it works for them! What you described is similar to what I'll do for certain people - they won't be happy with a bike and want to go in a certain direction (which I'll be almost certain is wrong) but you can't go in a straight line to the "right" set up, you almost need to go in loop so they get to feel the change they wanted to make but then also taken back to what you thought would be better. You have to be really careful with that though- I don't like to straight up lie to people, and the rider needs to be 100% confident you are listening to them and still working towards the same goals. When I say the "right" set up i still mean the feel that the rider wants to get, im just pretty sure that thr way to get there is different. Also by going through the change they first asked for they still get to compare the settings back to back and will either have a solid reference that you were right, OR they can go actually I liked my way better and you set it back. Because at that point, you've shown them both options and if they still chose the "worse" one, it was an informed decision and the technician did all they can and should support that choice, but also doesn't need to feel bad if the bike isn't as fast as it could be. It is also possible that I'm wrong - no engineer/tech/mechanic knows everything, and elite riders (even weekend warriors too) can be very sensitive but are also able to put bikes in to situations I can't relate to, so there needs to be a 2-way trust where if the rider is telling me something I wasnt expecting then I need to explore that possibility.
Each person is different ' when it comes to testing that psychological aspect is probably the hardest thing, and you need to be able to recognise what type of rider you are dealing with and the best way to treat them that builds trust and allows you to both reach your goals. As a race mechanic that goal is purely to get the rider their best result, so they are the ones with the final say - but when it comes to product testing then the manufacturer is looking for feedback so the rider might need to at least give a chance to something they might not normally prefer.
Yeah, not too many co's that don't have that 'development cycle' in their past. Most have thankfully moved on, and some discover all new and exciting ways for product to go kaplooey. FEA is a helluva tool, having testing labs is a helluva tool, but the best tool is forward thinking when it comes to failures to 1. prevent injury to users and 2. maintain brand integrity when failures start having a commonality. That's where most co's falter IMO. When Shimano announced their crank recall, a pal made mention that the total failures was well under .5%, which in most consumer goods engineering terms is actually pretty damn successful. Problem was there were a gazillion in the field so that .3% (or so) failure rate was a number in the thousands, and the net never forgets and rarely forgives. It took years for them to act on it, all the while more cases were being pimped with the #thanksshimano hash. But as I've seen in work environs, the hardest thing to remove from test data is the ego of the person or group responsible for design and testing. Admitting the test protocol that was developed does not represent what happens in the field is a big, hard pill, and one that could potentially affect one's pay raise schedule. Doubly so once a product design flaw is recognized by the public but not the team responsible for the design and testing.
Getting a bit off topic here...
I used the gen1 Motion Instruments setup quite a bit, and both agree and disagree. Strictly chasing numbers on DAQ is stupid and won't make the bike feel good. But using it to get the suspension balanced front/rear is great (especially a couple years ago when manufacturer settings seemed pretty far off). Also, it was really great way for me to help identify what each setting did in terms of ride feel (sometimes that would overlap, which was also good to know because sometimes I didn't want to change one thing but still needed to change another). For example, getting the sensation that the front was riding low (bars felt low on average), you could add air or comp (but that would also make it firmer), or you could open rebound because it lets the fork extend further between hits (=higher average bar height).
I think it can be a really useful tool to better understand what the bike is doing and how to manipulate that. That's why I'm so annoyed that big S killed MI System 2 - that would have been a great tool to throw on young racer kids' bikes for a day of shuttling to help get them in the right ballpark in terms of balance, and learn what the knobs do.
Nukeproof has a new home at Belgian Cycling Factory (Ridley, Merckx)
https://cyclingindustry.news/belgian-cycling-factory-acquires-nukeproof…
Reading between the lines, it sounds more like the current owners are simply licensing Nukeproof to BCF.
This is the model that Jamie Salter and Authentic Brands Group uses with all its trademarks. It rarely if ever works out well for the brand.
They talked about it a bit in the Bombhole podcast linked some pages back with Colleen Quigley.
I hope Nukeproof thrives, but I’d be skeptical to personally buy for a long long time.
The language makes it sound to me as though they bought it; how did you come the the conclusion it was a licencing agreement? They use the phrase acquisition, which is pretty black and white in my view.
Fresh out of the oven and already discounted (Canada).
The news item is written along the lines of Nukeproof being sold, not licensed.
More cuts at Warner Bros: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q1w9q1qvyo
"Wonder Woman game axed as Warner Bros cuts three studios"
The below is taken from the press release. Too many references to a continuing partnership and Frasers still playing some sort of role. If it was really a complete sale and separation, it would seem you would play that up and not use phrasing like that bolded.
Again, pure speculation, but I'm not holding my breath:
"This is an exciting new chapter, and we’re looking forward to building the future of Nukeproof together.”
Russell Merry, Managing Director of Wheels at Frasers Group, added: “We recognise the passion and dedication of Nukeproof riders around the world and want to protect its legacy and ensure its future. We’re pleased to be handing over the reins to a partner with a track record in innovative design, advanced manufacturing capabilities and benchmarking services.
“With BCF at the helm, we are confident that the brand will continue to thrive and evolve. Frasers Group will remain strong supporters of Nukeproof, ensuring customers can access the bikes they love as the brand enters this exciting new era.”
I would also add 'acquired' can mean a lot of things, including licensing rights. If it were a true complete sale, I would think they would just say 'sold' or 'bought'.
From the story on MBR
“BCF has bought all brand intellectual property for Nukeproof as well as all existing owned assets,” “Giving BCF the right to manufacture bikes from the existing range and innovate/ launch new Nukeproof models.”
I wouldn't be surprised if the deal gives Fraser Group the distribution rights for the UK, maybe that's where talk of the future etc comes from.
Those are much clearer statements. Fingers crossed for a stable resurrection!
Nah.
I enjoyed Brain Cahal's (hey assholes!) Bronson comparison, except I too have ridden multiple generations of Bronsons, and guess what, there is a BIG effing difference.
The problem as I see it is 3 fold:
1) It was a known regular track, they knew exactly where they were going and that isn't the same as riding your best on a less well known trail.
2) The climbing didn't matter, hello STA & CS length!
3) They are 2 very good riders and that makes up for a lot. Less capable riders are going to be more sensative to HTA, WB, security, needing a 52t 1st gear, etc.
Sure, all-out DH for 2 minutes on a known track by two great riders, no difference. But send a couple of Dad-duros (I'm available) out for a 3 hour ride on some trails at the limits of their abilities and the results would be radically different.
Post a reply to: The Bikeconomics (Mega)Thread