Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs, it isn't just all downsides with zero advantages.
Hence why a GX crankset is lighter, stronger, stiffer, and cheaper than that 5dev bullshit.
Well production methods and volumes is also a big part why it's cheaper, but yeah, it's hard to go with these niche products (Actofive Signature X is in the same boat) when you get more performance for a quarter of the price...
Yeah true. At least Actofive appears to have a good understanding of engineering fundamentals. I like that brand, even if I can't afford their products.
Yeah true. At least Actofive appears to have a good understanding of engineering fundamentals. I like that brand, even if I can't afford their products.
Let's just say I can't really agree with that and leave it at that.
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.
We learned this in the 90s the last time machined parts were cool.
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.
Probs hired that guy from the mullet only hardtail company...
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.
It's blatantly obvious that Lewis just straight up copies prestigious products with the objective of selling them to people who love the looks/bling factor of the absolute high-end stuff but don't want to pay for it. The structural integrity of the design has nothing to do with 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 (...
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
Those chainrings look very similar to some from Absolute Black
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...
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
Ah, good to know. Part of the appeal of Neko's projects are his Practicality First approach. I guess if you look closer, its on one of his bonded frames as well, which they haven't raced yet so ya I get that its just testing.
Canyon, however, remains. They have Horst Links on all their bikes EXCEPT their DH bike? The "F1" of mountain biking? Still makes no sense.
Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs...
Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs, it isn't just all downsides with zero advantages.
Hence why a GX crankset is lighter, stronger, stiffer, and cheaper than that 5dev bullshit.
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single machined hole in them.
They did both machined:
And 3D printed:
Since we are 3D printing lugs and entire head tubes now, why not cranks?
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."
Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs...
Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs, it isn't just all downsides with zero advantages.
Hence why a GX crankset is lighter, stronger, stiffer, and cheaper than that 5dev bullshit.
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single...
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single machined hole in them.
They did both machined:
And 3D printed:
Since we are 3D printing lugs and entire head tubes now, why not cranks?
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.
Short chainstays don't help you load the front...they do the reverse...
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.
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.
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single...
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single machined hole in them.
They did both machined:
And 3D printed:
Since we are 3D printing lugs and entire head tubes now, why not cranks?
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 (...
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
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
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 (...
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
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent...
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you can copy/paste the existing best in class and not care about sanctity/safety/reputation. Agreed it needs some int'l controls, or at least an industry-wide pact to never use any of that stuff for OEM or team sponsorships
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 (...
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
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent...
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
It's a matter of time when the good ol FAFO will catch up to them. So far it has been ethical issue but soon enough they will infringe a patent making it a legal issue. They might not care about that stuff in the country of origin but with them partnering with western companies, that is not going to sit well. I see they even copied the bearing arrangement of Outlier pedals 1:1 sigh..
Reminds me of the guys in very geometrically square plaid shirts on day 1 of SEMA taking pictures next to the hot new wheels. By day 7 some of the small Asian vendors in the back had new wheels that looked very "inspired".
Bottom line, I don't think any of that Lewis stuff is actually IP theft, sure it looks like other brands but I doubt anyone has a design patent on the looks. Design patents are so narrow, just an extra hole of fillet can void them.
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you...
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you can copy/paste the existing best in class and not care about sanctity/safety/reputation. Agreed it needs some int'l controls, or at least an industry-wide pact to never use any of that stuff for OEM or team sponsorships
Too late for that, they are already on the Intense Factory Racing team.
Lol I cant wait for the comments of wealthy 200lb beginners say the USD Fox is not stiff enough for their riding when there is a 200lb pro racer taking golds on the fork.
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 (...
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
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent...
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you...
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you can copy/paste the existing best in class and not care about sanctity/safety/reputation. Agreed it needs some int'l controls, or at least an industry-wide pact to never use any of that stuff for OEM or team sponsorships
part of the problem is that far too many people have the mindset "it only costs x to make why is it being sold for 3x?" without understanding that products don't just manifest themselves out of the ether ready for consumer sale. this isn't limited to the bike industry, either.
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 (...
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
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent...
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
Not that I am for people outright cloning other companies' products, I have experienced this professionally myself and it is infuriating, but there is zero IP theft happening with Lewis copying Trickstuff's brakes. Design patents are a type of IP that protects the aesthetics of a product, keeping me too products from existing, but they are super rare and very difficult to get granted. Utility patents which are the IP that one would file for to protect a function or feature, like leverage adjustment or bite point adjustment cover nothing related to how something looks. Lewis copying Trickstuff's brakes does not, without any doubt, constitute as IP theft. Trickstuff does not hold a single design patent, they also hold zero utility patents on how their brakes work as almost all of their design features are well within public domain at this point, piston sizes, compression ratios, reach adjustment etc...
I wouldn't own any of their products just because I wouldn't want to be their R&D team testing the products they copy, and I am morally against me too products capitalizing off of smaller boutique manufactures design aesthetic. But I did want to clarify that Lewis is not in violation of any patent, they didn't steal any IP.
Reminds me of the guys in very geometrically square plaid shirts on day 1 of SEMA taking pictures next to the hot new wheels. By day...
Reminds me of the guys in very geometrically square plaid shirts on day 1 of SEMA taking pictures next to the hot new wheels. By day 7 some of the small Asian vendors in the back had new wheels that looked very "inspired".
Bottom line, I don't think any of that Lewis stuff is actually IP theft, sure it looks like other brands but I doubt anyone has a design patent on the looks. Design patents are so narrow, just an extra hole of fillet can void them.
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you...
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you can copy/paste the existing best in class and not care about sanctity/safety/reputation. Agreed it needs some int'l controls, or at least an industry-wide pact to never use any of that stuff for OEM or team sponsorships
Oh for sure. Closed section has its issues when you're actually designing a real product, but unlike something like the 5dev or its many knock offs, it isn't just all downsides with zero advantages.
Hence why a GX crankset is lighter, stronger, stiffer, and cheaper than that 5dev bullshit.
Well production methods and volumes is also a big part why it's cheaper, but yeah, it's hard to go with these niche products (Actofive Signature X is in the same boat) when you get more performance for a quarter of the price...
Yeah true. At least Actofive appears to have a good understanding of engineering fundamentals. I like that brand, even if I can't afford their products.
Let's just say I can't really agree with that and leave it at that.
I'll just be over here hugging my Saint cranks if anyone needs me.
We learned this in the 90s the last time machined parts were cool.
(yes I'm old)
Probs hired that guy from the mullet only hardtail company...
It's blatantly obvious that Lewis just straight up copies prestigious products with the objective of selling them to people who love the looks/bling factor of the absolute high-end stuff but don't want to pay for it. The structural integrity of the design has nothing to do with it.
Those chainrings look very similar to some from Absolute Black
Ah, good to know. Part of the appeal of Neko's projects are his Practicality First approach. I guess if you look closer, its on one of his bonded frames as well, which they haven't raced yet so ya I get that its just testing.
Canyon, however, remains. They have Horst Links on all their bikes EXCEPT their DH bike? The "F1" of mountain biking? Still makes no sense.
Remeber those generatively designed cranks Sram played around with? Shame that the closest we got to an actual product is this latest generation with a single machined hole in them.
They did both machined:
And 3D printed:
Since we are 3D printing lugs and entire head tubes now, why not cranks?
Non negotiable because if it was any longer the frame would be an instant warranty.
Sturdy Cycles makes some (on the roadie side)
Short chainstays don't help you load the front...they do the reverse...
Theres now a forum for this that will allow you get super nerdy https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/modern-geo-talk-chainstays-stack-reach-and-bitching-about-it?page=4#comment-610846
“NO DISCUSSIONS IN THE TECH RUMOR THREAD.” Cmon man
Atherton may well be doing this soon
We really, really need to bring the hammer down on this IP theft. Not only are they stealing ideas and patents from people who have spent good r&d money on developing their ideas, they haven't done the r&d, so there's far less understanding of the decisions that led to the original design. It's wholly unsafe and not to be mistaken for simply reverse engineering existing components. I don't understand why they can't just make new stuff???
You answered your own question - good products take work and you make more money by not having to invest in developing a product when you can copy/paste the existing best in class and not care about sanctity/safety/reputation. Agreed it needs some int'l controls, or at least an industry-wide pact to never use any of that stuff for OEM or team sponsorships
It's a matter of time when the good ol FAFO will catch up to them. So far it has been ethical issue but soon enough they will infringe a patent making it a legal issue. They might not care about that stuff in the country of origin but with them partnering with western companies, that is not going to sit well. I see they even copied the bearing arrangement of Outlier pedals 1:1 sigh..
Reminds me of the guys in very geometrically square plaid shirts on day 1 of SEMA taking pictures next to the hot new wheels. By day 7 some of the small Asian vendors in the back had new wheels that looked very "inspired".
Bottom line, I don't think any of that Lewis stuff is actually IP theft, sure it looks like other brands but I doubt anyone has a design patent on the looks. Design patents are so narrow, just an extra hole of fillet can void them.
Richie rolling up to Pietra with the Fox inverted.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXQFvGKHZJ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Too late for that, they are already on the Intense Factory Racing team.
Lol I cant wait for the comments of wealthy 200lb beginners say the USD Fox is not stiff enough for their riding when there is a 200lb pro racer taking golds on the fork.
part of the problem is that far too many people have the mindset "it only costs x to make why is it being sold for 3x?" without understanding that products don't just manifest themselves out of the ether ready for consumer sale. this isn't limited to the bike industry, either.
What is attached to the brake caliper in the 4th shot? Looks like it has an LED on it... some sort of sensor?
Not that I am for people outright cloning other companies' products, I have experienced this professionally myself and it is infuriating, but there is zero IP theft happening with Lewis copying Trickstuff's brakes. Design patents are a type of IP that protects the aesthetics of a product, keeping me too products from existing, but they are super rare and very difficult to get granted. Utility patents which are the IP that one would file for to protect a function or feature, like leverage adjustment or bite point adjustment cover nothing related to how something looks. Lewis copying Trickstuff's brakes does not, without any doubt, constitute as IP theft. Trickstuff does not hold a single design patent, they also hold zero utility patents on how their brakes work as almost all of their design features are well within public domain at this point, piston sizes, compression ratios, reach adjustment etc...
I wouldn't own any of their products just because I wouldn't want to be their R&D team testing the products they copy, and I am morally against me too products capitalizing off of smaller boutique manufactures design aesthetic. But I did want to clarify that Lewis is not in violation of any patent, they didn't steal any IP.
100%
https://ridefox.com/products/live-valve-neo-kit
was going to call them out but thought they wised up this year, are they still on Lewis?? EXT was such a sweet move but not the knockoffs Jeff please