That bike is beautiful, huge step up from the previous designs. Hope they make a Rise with this silhouette.
Unfortunately not possible. Since the motor is in the way, the shock position and therefor the toptube will always be much higher on an e bike with the shock standing on front of the seat tube.
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using...
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using Syn data and 6 axis IMU on axles and BB recording 2000 times per second.
1. Rear Axle vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~1.93%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~3.18%
2. BB frame vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~0.54%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~5.48%
Yes there’s always negatives to adding weight, but just giving an idea of what I found.
- Progressive and linear leverage rate adjustment - High and low geometry flip chip (enduro models) - 442mm or 450mm chain stay length - +/- .75-degree head angle adjustment - Internal frame storage and water bottle mount - Optional weights can be added to the lower link (up to 583g DH/550g enduro) - 148mm boost rear spacing - Sizes: S-XL - Enduro builds: E10 - $5,699 // E-TEAM - $7,199 // E-LTD - $9,999 - DH build: D-LTD - $8,299 - Weight (size XL, weights installed): E-LTD - 36.3 lbs (16.5 kg) // D-LTD - 37.1 lbs (16.85 kg)
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive.
However, I have the same concern I always have with travel adjustment frames- tuned stiffness.
If you change the axle to crown on your fork, change your rear travel, even adjust your chainstay length, you are changing the stiffness/compliance of the frame. In this case the increase to a DH fork isn't that big a deal- normally a longer axle to crown will make the bike flex more, but dual crown forks have shorter axle to crown lengths so going from 180 single crown to 200 dual crown is a very little (if any) change.
More on the stiffness/compliance front, beyond just travel adjustments, for Enduro racing and riding in general, you want a more compliant ride (riding longer, less practiced trails with less travel and more fatigued) while with DH you want precision (riding shorter, fewer courses that you can practice a lot more).
Thoughts? Or is all this moot since few companies even bother to tune their various frame size stiffness differently?
I am the only one wanting it with 200mm rear travel and a SC fork up front?
I used to do this with my Crestline RS205. Just left a 12 speed cassette on it and went back and forth. Ultimately ended up just not bothering to take the dual crown off if I was trail riding.
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive. However, I have the same concern I always have with travel...
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive.
However, I have the same concern I always have with travel adjustment frames- tuned stiffness.
If you change the axle to crown on your fork, change your rear travel, even adjust your chainstay length, you are changing the stiffness/compliance of the frame. In this case the increase to a DH fork isn't that big a deal- normally a longer axle to crown will make the bike flex more, but dual crown forks have shorter axle to crown lengths so going from 180 single crown to 200 dual crown is a very little (if any) change.
More on the stiffness/compliance front, beyond just travel adjustments, for Enduro racing and riding in general, you want a more compliant ride (riding longer, less practiced trails with less travel and more fatigued) while with DH you want precision (riding shorter, fewer courses that you can practice a lot more).
Thoughts? Or is all this moot since few companies even bother to tune their various frame size stiffness differently?
Gotta save something for the 2026-27 frame update.
They could do new molds with thinner diameter seatstays or chainstays. Offer the front end in two different layups in all sizes. A DH priority / heavy rider layup. Enduro priority / lighter rider layup.
Just think of all the combinations you could do. Lighter rider layup front end / heavy rider chainstays and thin seatstays. Allow ridres to purchas all the different parts ala carte.
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive. However, I have the same concern I always have with travel...
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive.
However, I have the same concern I always have with travel adjustment frames- tuned stiffness.
If you change the axle to crown on your fork, change your rear travel, even adjust your chainstay length, you are changing the stiffness/compliance of the frame. In this case the increase to a DH fork isn't that big a deal- normally a longer axle to crown will make the bike flex more, but dual crown forks have shorter axle to crown lengths so going from 180 single crown to 200 dual crown is a very little (if any) change.
More on the stiffness/compliance front, beyond just travel adjustments, for Enduro racing and riding in general, you want a more compliant ride (riding longer, less practiced trails with less travel and more fatigued) while with DH you want precision (riding shorter, fewer courses that you can practice a lot more).
Thoughts? Or is all this moot since few companies even bother to tune their various frame size stiffness differently?
Gotta save something for the 2026-27 frame update. They could do new molds with thinner diameter seatstays or chainstays. Offer the front end in two different layups...
Gotta save something for the 2026-27 frame update.
They could do new molds with thinner diameter seatstays or chainstays. Offer the front end in two different layups in all sizes. A DH priority / heavy rider layup. Enduro priority / lighter rider layup.
Just think of all the combinations you could do. Lighter rider layup front end / heavy rider chainstays and thin seatstays. Allow ridres to purchas all the different parts ala carte.
Make a modular frame to reduce SKUs, then make loads of variants of it to increase SKUs. Smart plan.
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using...
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using Syn data and 6 axis IMU on axles and BB recording 2000 times per second.
1. Rear Axle vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~1.93%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~3.18%
2. BB frame vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~0.54%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~5.48%
Yes there’s always negatives to adding weight, but just giving an idea of what I found.
No changes were made between runs, Just BB weight on or off. Back to back run. It's like high level overview type of data ya know. I'll dig in more now that bike park season is starting. I just thought it was fitting with the Orbea bike release, to drop some quick insights to what I found last week.
Unfortunately not possible. Since the motor is in the way, the shock position and therefor the toptube will always be much higher on an e bike...
Unfortunately not possible. Since the motor is in the way, the shock position and therefor the toptube will always be much higher on an e bike with the shock standing on front of the seat tube.
The shock is pretty far ahead of the BB and motors are starting to get pretty small. A TQ might fit as is. You’d have to change the shock access though
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using...
Talking about weights, I just ran some numbers from a test I did with and without BB weights. Same trail, no changes besides 1000g on bb. Using Syn data and 6 axis IMU on axles and BB recording 2000 times per second.
1. Rear Axle vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~1.93%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~3.18%
2. BB frame vertical Acceleration with weight
Positive Acceleration: Decreased by ~0.54%
Negative Acceleration: Decreased by ~5.48%
Yes there’s always negatives to adding weight, but just giving an idea of what I found.
Im sorry can you define what direction positive and negative refer to. I dont know why Im taking it both ways.
Make a modular frame to reduce SKUs, then make loads of variants of it to increase SKUs. Smart plan.
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold investments & tooling) significantly. Hypothetically, they can make 10 DH models and 10 Enduro models (lots of SKUs) but from a "single" mold investment and different metal links (reduced CAPEX). This is very challenging for Orbea because they have to essentially plan 2 different bikes in the same mold set up. More has to be figured out (compared to making separate DH and separate Enduro bikes) before they go to tooling.
We do a similar thing in the ski boot world where I can make lots of different SKUs (World Cup race boots, race-inspired boots, and freeride boots) all from one "single" (yet very modular & Lego-like) mold set up/investment.
TL/DR - they can have the same (or more) number of SKUs (if they want) but with less mold investment and CAPEX.
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold...
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold investments & tooling) significantly. Hypothetically, they can make 10 DH models and 10 Enduro models (lots of SKUs) but from a "single" mold investment and different metal links (reduced CAPEX). This is very challenging for Orbea because they have to essentially plan 2 different bikes in the same mold set up. More has to be figured out (compared to making separate DH and separate Enduro bikes) before they go to tooling.
We do a similar thing in the ski boot world where I can make lots of different SKUs (World Cup race boots, race-inspired boots, and freeride boots) all from one "single" (yet very modular & Lego-like) mold set up/investment.
TL/DR - they can have the same (or more) number of SKUs (if they want) but with less mold investment and CAPEX.
I was hoping the new Demo/Enduro would also be similar with one front triangle and a link swap would convert from the DH bike to the enduro, but the new proto mule has killed that hope with the short seat tub setup.
very rought astimation on what this would do to the Kinematics of the bike:Blue is the version pirrion is running, pink the productionis high antirise the...
very rought astimation on what this would do to the Kinematics of the bike:
Blue is the version pirrion is running, pink the production
To say it plainly, yes. That's why you've been seeing the chainstays on nearly every production DH bike settle on a midpivot. They'll all calculate the...
To say it plainly, yes. That's why you've been seeing the chainstays on nearly every production DH bike settle on a midpivot. They'll all calculate the rider's CG differently, but nearly everyone is chasing high AR numbers at the moment, and the easiest way to do that is to change where the chainstay mounts. In that graph the bike reaches the 100% AR mark at around 40-50% travel, so it'll pack down a bit at sag, until it goes past that 100%, where it will want to stand up a little. This basically means the bike is experiencing a form of equilibrium under braking, any braking force at any point in the travel will try to bring it to that 100% mark.
Sorry I was half sleeping when I first saw the graph and thought it was AS. Personally I just don’t get the high AR, I guess...
Sorry I was half sleeping when I first saw the graph and thought it was AS. Personally I just don’t get the high AR, I guess us mortals ride the brakes too much, or at least I do and it makes the shock feel so bad!
I am not a super fast racer, but i prefer high AR. Comming from a supreme V4 i always enjoy the stability under braking.
But then again the tracks here in germany are not overly steep, if you ride more in the alps that might be a different thing
TBH i am a bit surprised about all the positiv feedback for the Orbea bike
To me the bike is just boring and has nothing really going for it. I mean i looks nice, but it's just a very normal split pivot design, No high pivot (wouldn't buy), no fancy kinematics and all those annoying enduro standards. Adding weight in a clan way is nice, but i wonder if you couldn't just make an alluminum frame in the first place
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold...
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold investments & tooling) significantly. Hypothetically, they can make 10 DH models and 10 Enduro models (lots of SKUs) but from a "single" mold investment and different metal links (reduced CAPEX). This is very challenging for Orbea because they have to essentially plan 2 different bikes in the same mold set up. More has to be figured out (compared to making separate DH and separate Enduro bikes) before they go to tooling.
We do a similar thing in the ski boot world where I can make lots of different SKUs (World Cup race boots, race-inspired boots, and freeride boots) all from one "single" (yet very modular & Lego-like) mold set up/investment.
TL/DR - they can have the same (or more) number of SKUs (if they want) but with less mold investment and CAPEX.
The cost of lab and ride testing and getting all the different frames externally tested and certified would be significant. I would also be concerned about identical frames with different flex characteristics getting mixed up in the factory, Orbea offer custom paint and there is a lot of opportunity for mix ups in handling. The CAPEX savings are there, but the cost of complexity associated with the multiple SKUs is significant.
Not saying it's not possible, but if you want to offer different flex characteristics for a single frame design, it would be maybe easier to do what Mondraker and Atherton etc. are doing and have bolt on braces. They already have a swappable shock mount.
I find the new Orbea quite interesting. I also had a R5 and still have a R6 – both with a relatively high pivot point and corresponding anti-squat.
I'm surprised that the bike has such a low pivot point and thus such a low AS. Especially if I wanted to build an all-rounder, I wouldn't do it that way. What do the suspension experts here think?
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on the seatstays are transmitted to the shock.
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on...
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on the seatstays are transmitted to the shock.
Nah, the shock is only taking the forces from the rocker here so this is a good use of trunning. This design removed the shock "eating" yoke from the former Rallon design.
Airdrop dropped new batch of their bikes in limited-edition Stealthy look. I expected it to pop up here or on PB, but nothing so far. They probably (and hopefully) will sell them anyways.
Thanks lord the Slacker is still not available in MX, I’d have a tough conversation with my wife.
Edit: one can’t upload pics from mobile here, am I right?
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on...
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on the seatstays are transmitted to the shock.
There are two interfaces moving from the seat stay to the shock, yet all twisting loads just bypass those and go to the shock?
In a less sarcastic note, we've seen lots of DH bikes removing seat stay bridges and just relying on the the rocker pivot and shock for stability and it's perfectly fine. With good bearing design and rocker design you don't need a seat stay bridge to mitigate damage to the shock, it's purely for stiffness characteristics.
i also find it interesting that it only mentions the new saint derailler, and instead specs XTR brakes, and raceface cranks instead of saint for those.
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold...
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold investments & tooling) significantly. Hypothetically, they can make 10 DH models and 10 Enduro models (lots of SKUs) but from a "single" mold investment and different metal links (reduced CAPEX). This is very challenging for Orbea because they have to essentially plan 2 different bikes in the same mold set up. More has to be figured out (compared to making separate DH and separate Enduro bikes) before they go to tooling.
We do a similar thing in the ski boot world where I can make lots of different SKUs (World Cup race boots, race-inspired boots, and freeride boots) all from one "single" (yet very modular & Lego-like) mold set up/investment.
TL/DR - they can have the same (or more) number of SKUs (if they want) but with less mold investment and CAPEX.
User name checks out.
...and also it's a great bunch of thoughts. I hadn't played it out as far as you did but I definitely had the thought that it seems potentially pretty smart from a cashflow perspective.
I may not be understanding their whole process correctly, but less money tied up in mold and production investments and moving those expenses - even if its the same costs - to occur after the bikes are sold (via paying people for their labor and brains to make sure parts go where they need to go) makes a lot of sense.
The fact that Orbea is a family-owned co-op is super awesome, too. I'd buy a bike from them if the shop around here that carries their stuff wasn't such a shitty company. Until I absolutely don't need a shop's service intervention (when I've acquired all the tools, space, and skills I'd need - which is potentially never) I won't buy anything that would necessitate me giving that shitty shop any tangible amount of my money.
I am the only one wanting it with 200mm rear travel and a SC fork up front?
Unfortunately not possible. Since the motor is in the way, the shock position and therefor the toptube will always be much higher on an e bike with the shock standing on front of the seat tube.
What, if any suspension adjustments did you make?
Support your local dive shop!
I haven't seen a product launch with such a positive reception in quite a while. Impressive.
However, I have the same concern I always have with travel adjustment frames- tuned stiffness.
If you change the axle to crown on your fork, change your rear travel, even adjust your chainstay length, you are changing the stiffness/compliance of the frame. In this case the increase to a DH fork isn't that big a deal- normally a longer axle to crown will make the bike flex more, but dual crown forks have shorter axle to crown lengths so going from 180 single crown to 200 dual crown is a very little (if any) change.
More on the stiffness/compliance front, beyond just travel adjustments, for Enduro racing and riding in general, you want a more compliant ride (riding longer, less practiced trails with less travel and more fatigued) while with DH you want precision (riding shorter, fewer courses that you can practice a lot more).
Thoughts? Or is all this moot since few companies even bother to tune their various frame size stiffness differently?
I used to do this with my Crestline RS205. Just left a 12 speed cassette on it and went back and forth. Ultimately ended up just not bothering to take the dual crown off if I was trail riding.
Gotta save something for the 2026-27 frame update.
They could do new molds with thinner diameter seatstays or chainstays. Offer the front end in two different layups in all sizes. A DH priority / heavy rider layup. Enduro priority / lighter rider layup.
Just think of all the combinations you could do. Lighter rider layup front end / heavy rider chainstays and thin seatstays. Allow ridres to purchas all the different parts ala carte.
Make a modular frame to reduce SKUs, then make loads of variants of it to increase SKUs. Smart plan.
The lower model also shows new XT brakes M8220.
Also Orbea site is showing "new Saint" for the DH bike but it seems the images are with the current version.
No changes were made between runs, Just BB weight on or off. Back to back run. It's like high level overview type of data ya know. I'll dig in more now that bike park season is starting. I just thought it was fitting with the Orbea bike release, to drop some quick insights to what I found last week.
The shock is pretty far ahead of the BB and motors are starting to get pretty small. A TQ might fit as is. You’d have to change the shock access though
Saves money in a lot of ways, especially molds. So yeah, kinda smart.
Yeah not all skus are created equal.
Im sorry can you define what direction positive and negative refer to. I dont know why Im taking it both ways.
All that is needed for the new Rallon is for Fox to release the USD fork so the same front wheel can be used in enduro and DH mode.
Small nerd correction: what Orbea is doing is really smart because they can make the same (or more) number of SKUs but reduce their CAPEX (mold investments & tooling) significantly. Hypothetically, they can make 10 DH models and 10 Enduro models (lots of SKUs) but from a "single" mold investment and different metal links (reduced CAPEX). This is very challenging for Orbea because they have to essentially plan 2 different bikes in the same mold set up. More has to be figured out (compared to making separate DH and separate Enduro bikes) before they go to tooling.
We do a similar thing in the ski boot world where I can make lots of different SKUs (World Cup race boots, race-inspired boots, and freeride boots) all from one "single" (yet very modular & Lego-like) mold set up/investment.
TL/DR - they can have the same (or more) number of SKUs (if they want) but with less mold investment and CAPEX.
I was hoping the new Demo/Enduro would also be similar with one front triangle and a link swap would convert from the DH bike to the enduro, but the new proto mule has killed that hope with the short seat tub setup.
I am not a super fast racer, but i prefer high AR.
Comming from a supreme V4 i always enjoy the stability under braking.
But then again the tracks here in germany are not overly steep, if you ride more in the alps that might be a different thing
TBH i am a bit surprised about all the positiv feedback for the Orbea bike
To me the bike is just boring and has nothing really going for it.
I mean i looks nice, but it's just a very normal split pivot design,
No high pivot (wouldn't buy), no fancy kinematics and all those annoying enduro standards.
Adding weight in a clan way is nice, but i wonder if you couldn't just make an alluminum frame in the first place
The cost of lab and ride testing and getting all the different frames externally tested and certified would be significant. I would also be concerned about identical frames with different flex characteristics getting mixed up in the factory, Orbea offer custom paint and there is a lot of opportunity for mix ups in handling. The CAPEX savings are there, but the cost of complexity associated with the multiple SKUs is significant.
Not saying it's not possible, but if you want to offer different flex characteristics for a single frame design, it would be maybe easier to do what Mondraker and Atherton etc. are doing and have bolt on braces. They already have a swappable shock mount.
I find the new Orbea quite interesting. I also had a R5 and still have a R6 – both with a relatively high pivot point and corresponding anti-squat.
I'm surprised that the bike has such a low pivot point and thus such a low AS. Especially if I wanted to build an all-rounder, I wouldn't do it that way. What do the suspension experts here think?
The new Orbea lacking any seat stay bridge + trunnion mount shock seems to have the potential to eat shocks. Pretty much all twisting loads on the seatstays are transmitted to the shock.
Nah, the shock is only taking the forces from the rocker here so this is a good use of trunning. This design removed the shock "eating" yoke from the former Rallon design.
Airdrop dropped new batch of their bikes in limited-edition Stealthy look. I expected it to pop up here or on PB, but nothing so far. They probably (and hopefully) will sell them anyways.
Thanks lord the Slacker is still not available in MX, I’d have a tough conversation with my wife.
Edit: one can’t upload pics from mobile here, am I right?
There are two interfaces moving from the seat stay to the shock, yet all twisting loads just bypass those and go to the shock?
In a less sarcastic note, we've seen lots of DH bikes removing seat stay bridges and just relying on the the rocker pivot and shock for stability and it's perfectly fine. With good bearing design and rocker design you don't need a seat stay bridge to mitigate damage to the shock, it's purely for stiffness characteristics.
so this got me intrigued..... i pulled up the manual for the new orbea DH bike, while it's only in spanish, i did find a few things:
i also find it interesting that it only mentions the new saint derailler, and instead specs XTR brakes, and raceface cranks instead of saint for those.
maybe they pull a grx and make it not a complete group?
User name checks out.
...and also it's a great bunch of thoughts. I hadn't played it out as far as you did but I definitely had the thought that it seems potentially pretty smart from a cashflow perspective.
I may not be understanding their whole process correctly, but less money tied up in mold and production investments and moving those expenses - even if its the same costs - to occur after the bikes are sold (via paying people for their labor and brains to make sure parts go where they need to go) makes a lot of sense.
The fact that Orbea is a family-owned co-op is super awesome, too. I'd buy a bike from them if the shop around here that carries their stuff wasn't such a shitty company. Until I absolutely don't need a shop's service intervention (when I've acquired all the tools, space, and skills I'd need - which is potentially never) I won't buy anything that would necessitate me giving that shitty shop any tangible amount of my money.