What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour...
What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour but the leaverage rate requires a 6 bar linkage and all the additional complexity and hardware associated with that.
Devinci did it better with the Wilson HP proto. No 6 bar needed to get a decent LR.
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
We’re not allowed to call them chainstays anymore . We must refer to them as (part of) the rear centre… or face forum judgement.
I noticed some silver Crankbros wheels popping up, first in Brian Cahal's video on the new Ari Ebike, now on Commencal's Instagram. Hopefully these are releasing soon. Silver rims absolutely need to come back!
I noticed some silver Crankbros wheels popping up, first in Brian Cahal's video on the new Ari Ebike, now on Commencal's Instagram. Hopefully these are releasing...
I noticed some silver Crankbros wheels popping up, first in Brian Cahal's video on the new Ari Ebike, now on Commencal's Instagram. Hopefully these are releasing soon. Silver rims absolutely need to come back!
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path. Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number.
Short to load the front in a corner and come out with more corner exit speed and help in the tighter stuff. but growing enough to assist in Balance for the fast rough stuff. Go ride a trek slash gen 6, Perfect example of this.
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path.Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number. Short to load the front in a corner...
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path. Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number.
Short to load the front in a corner and come out with more corner exit speed and help in the tighter stuff. but growing enough to assist in Balance for the fast rough stuff. Go ride a trek slash gen 6, Perfect example of this.
I'm not sure I'd agree that that is a hard and fast rule like you're saying. Either way 435 is very short no matter where in the travel.
FW for example is 460 on a L, and the v10's ranges from 450-460.
What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour...
What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour but the leaverage rate requires a 6 bar linkage and all the additional complexity and hardware associated with that.
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link or single pivot is negligible unless you have a dramatic pivot placement like Kavenz. The rocker link(s) control the compression curve, so really the only purpose of the Horst Link is for anti-rise (or in most cases for Horst links, just rise). Why is managed rise desirable on a trail bike, enduro bike, and freeride bike, but not on a DH bike?
Its also related to those silly floating brake arms that Frameworks, Cube, and other Horst link bikes are playing around with. Why have the Horst Link at all if you're just going to put something else on the bike to manage rise?
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path.Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number. Short to load the front in a corner...
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path. Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number.
Short to load the front in a corner and come out with more corner exit speed and help in the tighter stuff. but growing enough to assist in Balance for the fast rough stuff. Go ride a trek slash gen 6, Perfect example of this.
I'm not sure I'd agree that that is a hard and fast rule like you're saying. Either way 435 is very short no matter where in...
I'm not sure I'd agree that that is a hard and fast rule like you're saying. Either way 435 is very short no matter where in the travel.
FW for example is 460 on a L, and the v10's ranges from 450-460.
'very short' for what exactly? Yep short for blasting through rock gardens at mach 3. but short so it can Increase corner exit speed and help with tight stuff. The Pro's always talk line choice in corners to exit as fast as possible.
alot of EWS riders Downsize but those guys are Strong asf, Size down on bike and hang on like F%$k over the fast stuff. few guys like eddy, matt & Jack have talked about it before.
static Rear centre plays more effect on slower stuff and generating speed, Dynamic offer ride changes at speed, such as When a rear centre grows. Theres alot that goes into this, like where is the BB in relation to the front at what travel, How spread out are the riders feet... does the bike go siffer in middle of stroke to stabilize the length? anti squat, anti rise.... alot of stuff changes when you mess with length.
People seriously need to stop looking at the length number and understand whats going on.
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link...
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link or single pivot is negligible unless you have a dramatic pivot placement like Kavenz. The rocker link(s) control the compression curve, so really the only purpose of the Horst Link is for anti-rise (or in most cases for Horst links, just rise). Why is managed rise desirable on a trail bike, enduro bike, and freeride bike, but not on a DH bike?
Its also related to those silly floating brake arms that Frameworks, Cube, and other Horst link bikes are playing around with. Why have the Horst Link at all if you're just going to put something else on the bike to manage rise?
What if I told you, that the position of the idler pulley dictated the pedalling characteristics? In racing development it is about marginal gains and force isolation. A good side effect of a high/mid pivot bike is that you can bake in whatever braking characteristics you want, without compromising pedalling characteristics. The linkage driven shock allows for further fettling with leverage ratios and travel etc. Being able to change leverage rate without it having knock on effects is an extremely powerful tool for riders and mechanics alike. It's also better for rider comfort when the bike stays predictable.
What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour...
What's amazing with this design is that Canyon have decided a single pivot is good enough to control the axle path, braking behaviour and pedalling behaviour but the leaverage rate requires a 6 bar linkage and all the additional complexity and hardware associated with that.
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link...
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link or single pivot is negligible unless you have a dramatic pivot placement like Kavenz. The rocker link(s) control the compression curve, so really the only purpose of the Horst Link is for anti-rise (or in most cases for Horst links, just rise). Why is managed rise desirable on a trail bike, enduro bike, and freeride bike, but not on a DH bike?
Its also related to those silly floating brake arms that Frameworks, Cube, and other Horst link bikes are playing around with. Why have the Horst Link at all if you're just going to put something else on the bike to manage rise?
Fw was just using it to test different AR values to possibly incorporate into future designs. Look at that image as a testing rig, not a prototype
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a...
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path.Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number. Short to load the front in a corner...
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path. Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number.
Short to load the front in a corner and come out with more corner exit speed and help in the tighter stuff. but growing enough to assist in Balance for the fast rough stuff. Go ride a trek slash gen 6, Perfect example of this.
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable
"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5” rear wheel, 29” up front. The smaller rear wheel achieves the responsiveness and manoeuvrability that riders want while the larger front maintains the stability and control necessary. This is non-negotiable. Same with the 438mm chainstay length. We built a ton of adjustability into this bike (as you’ll read in the next section), but this was not an area we wanted to compromise."
and
"The chainstay length is fixed at 438mm, striking a balance between agility and stability."
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5”...
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable
"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5” rear wheel, 29” up front. The smaller rear wheel achieves the responsiveness and manoeuvrability that riders want while the larger front maintains the stability and control necessary. This is non-negotiable. Same with the 438mm chainstay length. We built a ton of adjustability into this bike (as you’ll read in the next section), but this was not an area we wanted to compromise."
and
"The chainstay length is fixed at 438mm, striking a balance between agility and stability."
From the other site... 438mm + 17.5mm at sag (although the sag % wasn't mentioned). Max rear center growth of 23.5mm.
So you're effectively getting a 455mm rear center. Pretty much spot on these days.
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link...
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link or single pivot is negligible unless you have a dramatic pivot placement like Kavenz. The rocker link(s) control the compression curve, so really the only purpose of the Horst Link is for anti-rise (or in most cases for Horst links, just rise). Why is managed rise desirable on a trail bike, enduro bike, and freeride bike, but not on a DH bike?
Its also related to those silly floating brake arms that Frameworks, Cube, and other Horst link bikes are playing around with. Why have the Horst Link at all if you're just going to put something else on the bike to manage rise?
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5”...
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable
"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5” rear wheel, 29” up front. The smaller rear wheel achieves the responsiveness and manoeuvrability that riders want while the larger front maintains the stability and control necessary. This is non-negotiable. Same with the 438mm chainstay length. We built a ton of adjustability into this bike (as you’ll read in the next section), but this was not an area we wanted to compromise."
and
"The chainstay length is fixed at 438mm, striking a balance between agility and stability."
Wtf does non-negotiable mean here? Honestly an unhinged way to talk about these specs lol
Wtf does non-negotiable mean here? Honestly an unhinged way to talk about these specs lol
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow choosing a 438mm chainstay length isn't a compromise? Every geometry decision you make on a bike represents a compromise. They're all trade-offs.
Either that, or Canyon and friends have stumbled upon the Platonic ideal of the form "chainstay length." We're all in the cave over here, but at Canyon they've unshackled and transcended bodily existence to discovered the one true form of bike geometry. So meta of them.
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow...
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow choosing a 438mm chainstay length isn't a compromise? Every geometry decision you make on a bike represents a compromise. They're all trade-offs.
Either that, or Canyon and friends have stumbled upon the Platonic ideal of the form "chainstay length." We're all in the cave over here, but at Canyon they've unshackled and transcended bodily existence to discovered the one true form of bike geometry. So meta of them.
Maybe it's a translation thing?
It is an odd statement.
I haven't seen it mentioned but the Sender prototypes had threaded inserts for all the bolts and pivots to improve repairability. But it appears they ditched it on the production frame.
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow...
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow choosing a 438mm chainstay length isn't a compromise? Every geometry decision you make on a bike represents a compromise. They're all trade-offs.
Either that, or Canyon and friends have stumbled upon the Platonic ideal of the form "chainstay length." We're all in the cave over here, but at Canyon they've unshackled and transcended bodily existence to discovered the one true form of bike geometry. So meta of them.
In the german press release it says: "Das Zusammenspiel zwischen Stabilität und Reaktionsfähigkeit ist nicht immer leicht miteinander zu vereinbaren, aber diese beiden Eigenschaften sind entscheidend bei einem Downhill-Bike."
I would roughly translate it to "achiving a compromise between stability and responsiveness (which is essentiell for a DH bike) is not easy and leads to trade offs of some form". And I think the last part was meant by the "non negotiable" term.
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow...
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow choosing a 438mm chainstay length isn't a compromise? Every geometry decision you make on a bike represents a compromise. They're all trade-offs.
Either that, or Canyon and friends have stumbled upon the Platonic ideal of the form "chainstay length." We're all in the cave over here, but at Canyon they've unshackled and transcended bodily existence to discovered the one true form of bike geometry. So meta of them.
Extra bonus points for weaving The Republic into the chainstay conversation. I'm here for it.
Some new stuff and some other clones from Lewis, shame i didn't manage to screenshot a story with the chainrings cause those look really good ( and as far as i know they look like nothing else in the market ) laughable 3d printed levers, again clone from Trickstuff, the other stuff looks interesting, not too sure about those huge bearings in the pedals...
Rotors are again a clone from some Chinese brand that months ago kept getting pushed as an Ad on IG
Fuck those cranks. There's SUCH a good structural reason why holes in cranks are a bad idea, with the exception of the sram cranks. The reason that all those 5dev cranks break despite not being very lightweight is 100 level shit, and I hate that the mtb industry is stupid enough to entertain it.
A 2 dimensional truss structure is fucking terrible in torsion, and most of the crank arm sees a LOT of torsion. Then you've got all the stress concentrations with all the internal corners, and that multiplies your max stresses by a lot again. The reason why the sram cranks with the hole through them are somewhat acceptable is because the part of the crank near the bb where the hole is, is angled directly at the centre of pressure of the pedal, so the torsion through that part of the crank is low and it's mostly just a bending load, which is fine. There are no holes in the part where it changes angle and becomes more parallel with the centreline of the bike, because that would be really stupid.
You get the best performance in torsion from closed section (box section, tube section etc) cranks like shimano hollowtech, or garbaruk, eewings etc. Or carbon stuff.
You see similar attention paid to the torsional loads vs bending loads in something like the raceface atlas crank where it's more like an I-beam (good in bending) on the bit near the bb where that part of the arm is pointed at the load centre, then it moves to more of a C-section with stiffeners on the inside of the C (better in torsion) for the latter half of the crank arm.
Fuck those cranks. There's SUCH a good structural reason why holes in cranks are a bad idea, with the exception of the sram cranks. The reason...
Fuck those cranks. There's SUCH a good structural reason why holes in cranks are a bad idea, with the exception of the sram cranks. The reason that all those 5dev cranks break despite not being very lightweight is 100 level shit, and I hate that the mtb industry is stupid enough to entertain it.
A 2 dimensional truss structure is fucking terrible in torsion, and most of the crank arm sees a LOT of torsion. Then you've got all the stress concentrations with all the internal corners, and that multiplies your max stresses by a lot again. The reason why the sram cranks with the hole through them are somewhat acceptable is because the part of the crank near the bb where the hole is, is angled directly at the centre of pressure of the pedal, so the torsion through that part of the crank is low and it's mostly just a bending load, which is fine. There are no holes in the part where it changes angle and becomes more parallel with the centreline of the bike, because that would be really stupid.
You get the best performance in torsion from closed section (box section, tube section etc) cranks like shimano hollowtech, or garbaruk, eewings etc. Or carbon stuff.
You see similar attention paid to the torsional loads vs bending loads in something like the raceface atlas crank where it's more like an I-beam (good in bending) on the bit near the bb where that part of the arm is pointed at the load centre, then it moves to more of a C-section with stiffeners on the inside of the C (better in torsion) for the latter half of the crank arm.
The best choice is for sure a box section but if you don't have the volumes for forging, the only option is glued two piece construction (if aluminium). Which might delaminate if you're unlucky...
Devinci did it better with the Wilson HP proto. No 6 bar needed to get a decent LR.
Looks like a blend of lahar and Unno, sick nonetheless
Wonder if it comes with pubes?
I could be wrong, but aren't the chainstays on the new Sender a little short for a race bike? Perhaps they are trying to strike a balance between playful park bike and race machine.
Rumor has it they will come with a pinch of grated parmigiano reggiano
We’re not allowed to call them chainstays anymore . We must refer to them as (part of) the rear centre… or face forum judgement.
I noticed some silver Crankbros wheels popping up, first in Brian Cahal's video on the new Ari Ebike, now on Commencal's Instagram. Hopefully these are releasing soon. Silver rims absolutely need to come back!
Heard DT will bring some too!
Race bikes want short but growing on the right path.
Which is why they've specifically mentioned the at sag number.
Short to load the front in a corner and come out with more corner exit speed and help in the tighter stuff.
but growing enough to assist in Balance for the fast rough stuff.
Go ride a trek slash gen 6, Perfect example of this.
It's a grower not a shower
I'm not sure I'd agree that that is a hard and fast rule like you're saying. Either way 435 is very short no matter where in the travel.
FW for example is 460 on a L, and the v10's ranges from 450-460.
I just don't get it. They are Horst Link on all their other bikes and previous DH bikes. The axle path difference between a Horst link or single pivot is negligible unless you have a dramatic pivot placement like Kavenz. The rocker link(s) control the compression curve, so really the only purpose of the Horst Link is for anti-rise (or in most cases for Horst links, just rise). Why is managed rise desirable on a trail bike, enduro bike, and freeride bike, but not on a DH bike?
Its also related to those silly floating brake arms that Frameworks, Cube, and other Horst link bikes are playing around with. Why have the Horst Link at all if you're just going to put something else on the bike to manage rise?
'very short' for what exactly? Yep short for blasting through rock gardens at mach 3. but short so it can Increase corner exit speed and help with tight stuff.
The Pro's always talk line choice in corners to exit as fast as possible.
alot of EWS riders Downsize but those guys are Strong asf, Size down on bike and hang on like F%$k over the fast stuff. few guys like eddy, matt & Jack have talked about it before.
static Rear centre plays more effect on slower stuff and generating speed, Dynamic offer ride changes at speed, such as When a rear centre grows.
Theres alot that goes into this, like where is the BB in relation to the front at what travel, How spread out are the riders feet... does the bike go siffer in middle of stroke to stabilize the length? anti squat, anti rise.... alot of stuff changes when you mess with length.
People seriously need to stop looking at the length number and understand whats going on.
What if I told you, that the position of the idler pulley dictated the pedalling characteristics? In racing development it is about marginal gains and force isolation. A good side effect of a high/mid pivot bike is that you can bake in whatever braking characteristics you want, without compromising pedalling characteristics. The linkage driven shock allows for further fettling with leverage ratios and travel etc. Being able to change leverage rate without it having knock on effects is an extremely powerful tool for riders and mechanics alike. It's also better for rider comfort when the bike stays predictable.
Fw was just using it to test different AR values to possibly incorporate into future designs. Look at that image as a testing rig, not a prototype
If you have a large amount of rearward axle movement, the initial length needs to be pretty short.
Pivot Phoenix starts at 443 and grows to 465. It sits around 460 at 30% sag.
Would have been nice to see Canyon publish something similar.
quotes from canyon's PR. does not say why C/S length is non-negotiable
"With the Sender CFR we decided on a mullet plat- form across the board; 27.5” rear wheel, 29” up front. The smaller rear wheel achieves the responsiveness and manoeuvrability that riders want while the larger front maintains the stability and control necessary. This is non-negotiable. Same with the 438mm chainstay length. We built a ton of adjustability into this bike (as you’ll read in the next section), but this was not an area we wanted to compromise."
and
"The chainstay length is fixed at 438mm, striking a balance between agility and stability."
From the other site... 438mm + 17.5mm at sag (although the sag % wasn't mentioned). Max rear center growth of 23.5mm.
So you're effectively getting a 455mm rear center. Pretty much spot on these days.
watch the video. neko explains what he's up to
Wtf does non-negotiable mean here? Honestly an unhinged way to talk about these specs lol
I agree. That sentence is bizarre. I'm weirded out by the implication that choosing a longer or shorter chainstay length would be a compromise, but somehow choosing a 438mm chainstay length isn't a compromise? Every geometry decision you make on a bike represents a compromise. They're all trade-offs.
Either that, or Canyon and friends have stumbled upon the Platonic ideal of the form "chainstay length." We're all in the cave over here, but at Canyon they've unshackled and transcended bodily existence to discovered the one true form of bike geometry. So meta of them.
Maybe it's a translation thing?
It is an odd statement.
I haven't seen it mentioned but the Sender prototypes had threaded inserts for all the bolts and pivots to improve repairability. But it appears they ditched it on the production frame.
Non negotiable financially?
In the german press release it says: "Das Zusammenspiel zwischen Stabilität und Reaktionsfähigkeit ist nicht immer leicht miteinander zu vereinbaren, aber diese beiden Eigenschaften sind entscheidend bei einem Downhill-Bike."
I would roughly translate it to "achiving a compromise between stability and responsiveness (which is essentiell for a DH bike) is not easy and leads to trade offs of some form". And I think the last part was meant by the "non negotiable" term.
Extra bonus points for weaving The Republic into the chainstay conversation. I'm here for it.
Some new stuff and some other clones from Lewis, shame i didn't manage to screenshot a story with the chainrings cause those look really good ( and as far as i know they look like nothing else in the market ) laughable 3d printed levers, again clone from Trickstuff, the other stuff looks interesting, not too sure about those huge bearings in the pedals...
Rotors are again a clone from some Chinese brand that months ago kept getting pushed as an Ad on IG
At least one benefit is they are using torx pin screws...
Weather we like it or not, they’re coming in strong into the market, and fast as well
Fuck those cranks. There's SUCH a good structural reason why holes in cranks are a bad idea, with the exception of the sram cranks. The reason that all those 5dev cranks break despite not being very lightweight is 100 level shit, and I hate that the mtb industry is stupid enough to entertain it.
A 2 dimensional truss structure is fucking terrible in torsion, and most of the crank arm sees a LOT of torsion. Then you've got all the stress concentrations with all the internal corners, and that multiplies your max stresses by a lot again. The reason why the sram cranks with the hole through them are somewhat acceptable is because the part of the crank near the bb where the hole is, is angled directly at the centre of pressure of the pedal, so the torsion through that part of the crank is low and it's mostly just a bending load, which is fine. There are no holes in the part where it changes angle and becomes more parallel with the centreline of the bike, because that would be really stupid.
You get the best performance in torsion from closed section (box section, tube section etc) cranks like shimano hollowtech, or garbaruk, eewings etc. Or carbon stuff.
You see similar attention paid to the torsional loads vs bending loads in something like the raceface atlas crank where it's more like an I-beam (good in bending) on the bit near the bb where that part of the arm is pointed at the load centre, then it moves to more of a C-section with stiffeners on the inside of the C (better in torsion) for the latter half of the crank arm.
The best choice is for sure a box section but if you don't have the volumes for forging, the only option is glued two piece construction (if aluminium). Which might delaminate if you're unlucky...