Every single frame can have a different layup and thus a custom stiffness tune coming out of either of those molds. The molds are expensive so...
Every single frame can have a different layup and thus a custom stiffness tune coming out of either of those molds. The molds are expensive so having two to cover 12 SKUs is very good thinking and in no way does it pigeonhole you into something you don't want stiffness wise.
@TEAMROBOT thanks for sharing, those dropouts are amazing. Did anyone do something like that to make 29er forks back in the day?
Production volumes end up that there is little to no sharing of molds when producing the various models based on travel. You might save on the...
Production volumes end up that there is little to no sharing of molds when producing the various models based on travel. You might save on the XS and XL molds if the volumes are low enough. Using one mold would also wear it out more quickly, thus requiring another mold to be made, once it's no longer repairable
I imagine for trek it's more about simplifying the product lineup and streamlining their logistics than mould costs. Now instead of having to manage inventory for three different frames, e.g the Fuel, Remedy and Slash (gen 5), they can just crank out one type of frame and assemble them up as a LX, EX or MX depending on demand.
I get that theres nothing new under the sun (to quote scripture), and that no matter how cool of an idea you come up with, someone...
I get that theres nothing new under the sun (to quote scripture), and that no matter how cool of an idea you come up with, someone will point to some mad scientist dong it in 2002 already, but more recently I think it was Guerrilla Gravity pioneering the resuable, modular frame design across travel brackets and models. They took it to an extreme with dramatic reach adjustments via modular, oval headset spacers. They could cover 4 sizes (I think?) and 3-4 modesl with just two molds.
My worry is you are forced to forgo tuned stiffness. A short travel bike needs to be a lot less stiff than an enduro bike since you have less travel to help you and the fork itself is shorter, so its a shorter lever on the frame.
Tuned stiffness is a good point. Although the amount of travel change honestly isn't that dramatic going from 145-160mm. I think it would be different if they were trying to make this bike cover the whole lineup from top fuel to session. As it was there was a bit of overlap between the Fuel, Remedy and Gen 5 slash when they were all out around the same time.
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and...
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and the custom mega-drop stem that mounts above and below the head tube, similar to drawings we've seen in this tech forum. The bike is being test ridden by BMC rider Titouan Carod, who won't be racing it this weekend, but is helping BMC test it on an actual World Cup XC track at World Cup pace (photos and factoids courtesy of the other sight).
I'm posting this photo to say "I told you so" because, even with the predictably insane looking drop stem. the bars are still basically level with the saddle. Carod is 178 cm or 5' 10", which would put him on the absolute low end of the height spectrum that you would expect to be able to ride one of these things.
For comparison, note the difference in bar drop on Titouan Carod's personal 29er race bike from the 2023 Brazil round. The 32" bike he's testing represents an ENORMOUS change in bike fit (70mm maybe?) for racers who obsess over 3mm of stack height. I'll be curious to see if these big wheels work out in practice, but the bike fit thing would be a huge concern for me if I was a racer or team manager.
Another thought is BB drop. In the article on the other site, the BMC rep who was interviewed said they were trying to maintain the same BB drop as the current race bike, which would be a weird move. I would want to maintain a similar BB height off the ground, not a similar BB drop from the axles. With the same BB drop as the current Fourstroke ONE 01, it seems like the BB and saddle height would both be in the sky. I think it'd feel like riding a bike from the top of a flag pole.
I suspect that quote or statement on the other site is wrong, because the in the quote the BMC rep says "the R&D team aimed to give this bike a similar bottom bracket drop as the Fourstroke ONE 01 - that's around 53 mm" which sounds like A TON of BB drop, and the current 29" race bike is listed on the BMC website as having a BB drop of 38mm on all sizes, which is a way more normal number. 53mm would be insanely low for a 29er, even a short travel one.
/endnerdrant
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a bit. I know lower stack means more power to the pedals and more front end grip but maybe these big wheels will change up the paradigm enough that the geo shift is balanced out by the increase in overall speed of the wheels? Just venturing guesses here and open to XC experts thoughts on this stuff
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the other ones are being raced and tested by their riders, they're not working on a full on dh bike but on something longer travel than anything currently offered ( 166mm for the Wreckoning and 168 for the Insurgent ), no short travel mullet bike in the works.
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the...
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the other ones are being raced and tested by their riders, they're not working on a full on dh bike but on something longer travel than anything currently offered ( 166mm for the Wreckoning and 168 for the Insurgent ), no short travel mullet bike in the works.
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the...
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the other ones are being raced and tested by their riders, they're not working on a full on dh bike but on something longer travel than anything currently offered ( 166mm for the Wreckoning and 168 for the Insurgent ), no short travel mullet bike in the works.
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the...
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the other ones are being raced and tested by their riders, they're not working on a full on dh bike but on something longer travel than anything currently offered ( 166mm for the Wreckoning and 168 for the Insurgent ), no short travel mullet bike in the works.
I really hope not, I don’t care if they would make the bikes faster or more stable at crazy speeds by 3% with a 450mm chainstay vs the 430, it’s another thing that makes those bike amazing for what they are, that being said it could be cool to see a flip chip that allows for a +10mm or something like that chainstay for those who want that or for the bigger sizes perhaps for a more balanced geo.
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and...
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and the custom mega-drop stem that mounts above and below the head tube, similar to drawings we've seen in this tech forum. The bike is being test ridden by BMC rider Titouan Carod, who won't be racing it this weekend, but is helping BMC test it on an actual World Cup XC track at World Cup pace (photos and factoids courtesy of the other sight).
I'm posting this photo to say "I told you so" because, even with the predictably insane looking drop stem. the bars are still basically level with the saddle. Carod is 178 cm or 5' 10", which would put him on the absolute low end of the height spectrum that you would expect to be able to ride one of these things.
For comparison, note the difference in bar drop on Titouan Carod's personal 29er race bike from the 2023 Brazil round. The 32" bike he's testing represents an ENORMOUS change in bike fit (70mm maybe?) for racers who obsess over 3mm of stack height. I'll be curious to see if these big wheels work out in practice, but the bike fit thing would be a huge concern for me if I was a racer or team manager.
Another thought is BB drop. In the article on the other site, the BMC rep who was interviewed said they were trying to maintain the same BB drop as the current race bike, which would be a weird move. I would want to maintain a similar BB height off the ground, not a similar BB drop from the axles. With the same BB drop as the current Fourstroke ONE 01, it seems like the BB and saddle height would both be in the sky. I think it'd feel like riding a bike from the top of a flag pole.
I suspect that quote or statement on the other site is wrong, because the in the quote the BMC rep says "the R&D team aimed to give this bike a similar bottom bracket drop as the Fourstroke ONE 01 - that's around 53 mm" which sounds like A TON of BB drop, and the current 29" race bike is listed on the BMC website as having a BB drop of 38mm on all sizes, which is a way more normal number. 53mm would be insanely low for a 29er, even a short travel one.
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a...
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a bit. I know lower stack means more power to the pedals and more front end grip but maybe these big wheels will change up the paradigm enough that the geo shift is balanced out by the increase in overall speed of the wheels? Just venturing guesses here and open to XC experts thoughts on this stuff
Why downvote I’m asking a question and looking for insight?
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and...
Wild looking 32" BMC spotted making laps on the Andorra XC track for testing. Note the crazy add-on dropouts to make a 29er fork work and the custom mega-drop stem that mounts above and below the head tube, similar to drawings we've seen in this tech forum. The bike is being test ridden by BMC rider Titouan Carod, who won't be racing it this weekend, but is helping BMC test it on an actual World Cup XC track at World Cup pace (photos and factoids courtesy of the other sight).
I'm posting this photo to say "I told you so" because, even with the predictably insane looking drop stem. the bars are still basically level with the saddle. Carod is 178 cm or 5' 10", which would put him on the absolute low end of the height spectrum that you would expect to be able to ride one of these things.
For comparison, note the difference in bar drop on Titouan Carod's personal 29er race bike from the 2023 Brazil round. The 32" bike he's testing represents an ENORMOUS change in bike fit (70mm maybe?) for racers who obsess over 3mm of stack height. I'll be curious to see if these big wheels work out in practice, but the bike fit thing would be a huge concern for me if I was a racer or team manager.
Another thought is BB drop. In the article on the other site, the BMC rep who was interviewed said they were trying to maintain the same BB drop as the current race bike, which would be a weird move. I would want to maintain a similar BB height off the ground, not a similar BB drop from the axles. With the same BB drop as the current Fourstroke ONE 01, it seems like the BB and saddle height would both be in the sky. I think it'd feel like riding a bike from the top of a flag pole.
I suspect that quote or statement on the other site is wrong, because the in the quote the BMC rep says "the R&D team aimed to give this bike a similar bottom bracket drop as the Fourstroke ONE 01 - that's around 53 mm" which sounds like A TON of BB drop, and the current 29" race bike is listed on the BMC website as having a BB drop of 38mm on all sizes, which is a way more normal number. 53mm would be insanely low for a 29er, even a short travel one.
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a...
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a bit. I know lower stack means more power to the pedals and more front end grip but maybe these big wheels will change up the paradigm enough that the geo shift is balanced out by the increase in overall speed of the wheels? Just venturing guesses here and open to XC experts thoughts on this stuff
Why downvote I’m asking a question and looking for insight?
I didn't downvote you, but the primary reason this increase in stack height is not great because it changes the fit the bike for the rider. As @TEAMROBOT showed in the comparison of the two bikes - the 32'er has almost no drop between saddle and bar and the 29'er has a ton.
Why downvote I’m asking a question and looking for insight?
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more power to the pedals is almost the entire ball game. Aerodynamics is way less important than in road racing, so the main benefit of a lower stack height and more hunched over body position in XC racing is the kinesthetically optimized position for mashing the pedals. Easier to mash the pedals when you’re bunched up in a little ball.
I didn't downvote you, but the primary reason this increase in stack height is not great because it changes the fit the bike for the rider...
I didn't downvote you, but the primary reason this increase in stack height is not great because it changes the fit the bike for the rider. As @TEAMROBOT showed in the comparison of the two bikes - the 32'er has almost no drop between saddle and bar and the 29'er has a ton.
If the 32" wheel takes off, it'll kick-start the development of bikes with 32" specific geo, but for now, as a launching off point and to familiarise riders with the new platform they're basically borrowing geo from 29ers. I've no doubt that when testing on the wheel size itself is done, the next step will be to test changes in geo.
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more...
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more power to the pedals is almost the entire ball game. Aerodynamics is way less important than in road racing, so the main benefit of a lower stack height and more hunched over body position in XC racing is the kinesthetically optimized position for mashing the pedals. Easier to mash the pedals when you’re bunched up in a little ball.
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more...
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more power to the pedals is almost the entire ball game. Aerodynamics is way less important than in road racing, so the main benefit of a lower stack height and more hunched over body position in XC racing is the kinesthetically optimized position for mashing the pedals. Easier to mash the pedals when you’re bunched up in a little ball.
Try one of those fan bikes in a fitness with a roadie-esque handlebar. It's really strange how "nice" it feels to be in the drops (lower) when mashing the pedals. There must really be something with the lower bars more power thing.
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more...
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more power to the pedals is almost the entire ball game. Aerodynamics is way less important than in road racing, so the main benefit of a lower stack height and more hunched over body position in XC racing is the kinesthetically optimized position for mashing the pedals. Easier to mash the pedals when you’re bunched up in a little ball.
Try one of those fan bikes in a fitness with a roadie-esque handlebar. It's really strange how "nice" it feels to be in the drops (lower)...
Try one of those fan bikes in a fitness with a roadie-esque handlebar. It's really strange how "nice" it feels to be in the drops (lower) when mashing the pedals. There must really be something with the lower bars more power thing.
The simplified version is that being more bent at the waist means more quad, glute, and hamstring engagement while pedaling.
... maybe to be released soon? Picture is the same as the original DHF currently. Rolling speed/traction/cornering graph thing is updated compared to the DHF.
Photo of the suspicious device on Vali Holl's bike here in Andorra...Apparently it is connected to the flightattendant
Photo of the suspicious device on Vali Holl's bike here in Andorra...Apparently it is connected to the flightattendant
It's just a more visible light connected to Flight Attendant so the athletes can tell what setting they are in more easily. First ones were actually too bright and this version could be more muted.
I imagine for trek it's more about simplifying the product lineup and streamlining their logistics than mould costs. Now instead of having to manage inventory for three different frames, e.g the Fuel, Remedy and Slash (gen 5), they can just crank out one type of frame and assemble them up as a LX, EX or MX depending on demand.
I'm amazed an American knew this reference, Also, we are showing our age here lol
Tuned stiffness is a good point. Although the amount of travel change honestly isn't that dramatic going from 145-160mm. I think it would be different if they were trying to make this bike cover the whole lineup from top fuel to session. As it was there was a bit of overlap between the Fuel, Remedy and Gen 5 slash when they were all out around the same time.
Probably 38 stanchions
38 stanchions and 32" wheel support to actually make it stiff?
Why is the stack height such an absolute number? If the benefit of the wheels are significant enough the the bikes will just change shape a bit. I know lower stack means more power to the pedals and more front end grip but maybe these big wheels will change up the paradigm enough that the geo shift is balanced out by the increase in overall speed of the wheels? Just venturing guesses here and open to XC experts thoughts on this stuff
from the insta stories of Jason Moeschler, the CEO of Evil bikes, new lineup is close, not this month but close, no new insurgent yet, the other ones are being raced and tested by their riders, they're not working on a full on dh bike but on something longer travel than anything currently offered ( 166mm for the Wreckoning and 168 for the Insurgent ), no short travel mullet bike in the works.
will they modernize their chainstay lengths?
Or will they stick to their 'fun aspect' and continue to make Realist MTB's for people who want to enjoy having fun on their bike.
I really hope not, I don’t care if they would make the bikes faster or more stable at crazy speeds by 3% with a 450mm chainstay vs the 430, it’s another thing that makes those bike amazing for what they are, that being said it could be cool to see a flip chip that allows for a +10mm or something like that chainstay for those who want that or for the bigger sizes perhaps for a more balanced geo.
They will die on that hill
Finally, Kashima lowers! 🙃
Why downvote I’m asking a question and looking for insight?
I didn't downvote you, but the primary reason this increase in stack height is not great because it changes the fit the bike for the rider. As @TEAMROBOT showed in the comparison of the two bikes - the 32'er has almost no drop between saddle and bar and the 29'er has a ton.
You kind of answered yourself in your question when you said, “I know lower stack means more power to the pedals.” In XC racing, getting more power to the pedals is almost the entire ball game. Aerodynamics is way less important than in road racing, so the main benefit of a lower stack height and more hunched over body position in XC racing is the kinesthetically optimized position for mashing the pedals. Easier to mash the pedals when you’re bunched up in a little ball.
If the 32" wheel takes off, it'll kick-start the development of bikes with 32" specific geo, but for now, as a launching off point and to familiarise riders with the new platform they're basically borrowing geo from 29ers. I've no doubt that when testing on the wheel size itself is done, the next step will be to test changes in geo.
Have you ridden one? Sounds either no, or just think that multilinks is better regardless ( it’s not )
I never knew this.
Try one of those fan bikes in a fitness with a roadie-esque handlebar. It's really strange how "nice" it feels to be in the drops (lower) when mashing the pedals. There must really be something with the lower bars more power thing.
The simplified version is that being more bent at the waist means more quad, glute, and hamstring engagement while pedaling.
A few years ago I wrote about the wheel transition... it seems it's happening again haha
https://thaleshow.wixsite.com/blog/single-post/2017/03/10/bicicletas-29…
Photo of the suspicious device on Vali Holl's bike here in Andorra...Apparently it is connected to the flightattendant
I'm almost certain that the new Maxxis tire will be the Minnion DHF2... I got a Test Pilote here in Andorra and it says Minnion DHF 2
DHF side knobs and HRII center tread? 🤯
... maybe to be released soon? Picture is the same as the original DHF currently. Rolling speed/traction/cornering graph thing is updated compared to the DHF.
More bent forward mostly means more hip extensors preload, and any good athlete generates most power from hips (glutes).
that's a worn DHR2 IMO 🤔
that potential DHF2 on jackson's bike has the L-shaped knobs turned 180 degree, like on vee tires.
It's just a more visible light connected to Flight Attendant so the athletes can tell what setting they are in more easily. First ones were actually too bright and this version could be more muted.
you know you can just download the pictures in the trek b2b website, right?