MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation

dolface wrote:

AXS and Di2 batteries weigh ~25g; I struggle to imagine a scenario in which reducing that weight makes any kind of measurable, real-world difference in performance.

Brian_Peterson wrote:

The weight difference between a normal derailleur and a T-type is definitely in how beefy the T-type is built.. Upside, a single charge on an AXS...

The weight difference between a normal derailleur and a T-type is definitely in how beefy the T-type is built.. Upside, a single charge on an AXS battery could probably get you through an entire race season..

Digit Bikes wrote:

Smaller, lighter AXS batteries already exist:

Smaller, lighter AXS batteries already exist:

AJW1 wrote:

Think the xc racers have been using them for a couple of years now (or they did for a gimmick or weight reduction posturing)My regular sized...

Think the xc racers have been using them for a couple of years now (or they did for a gimmick or weight reduction posturing)

My regular sized battery lasts a month riding 3 times a week - despite what the e-shifting haters claim about “having to charge every ride” so no risk of a 1.5 hour xc race or an entire DH race week posing an issue for the smaller version.

Dave_Camp wrote:

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the...

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the rear wheel.  The unsprung weight on the rear end is probably about 5kg- wheel, tire, brake caliper, cassette, derailleur, chainstay/seatstay, link etc.  250g is a small % change.

 

Another thing I didn't see any discussion about is the fact that the tire is kind of suspension for the wheel.  A heavier wheel might make the tire work harder and filter out some vibration before it can even get to the axle.  Think about a 10kg wheel- might filter out all the high frequency vibration because the tire can't move it at that frequency.

 

The sprung/un-sprung discussion is mostly academic anyway- you have to run good tires and wheels/brakes/drivetrain for your application.  The weight is what it is- might save a few hundred grams by throwing money at it, but it's not going to be a big change either way.  

 

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Thanks for chiming in, Dave. I think you described my impressions perfectly, I have a light wheelset with light tires and a heavy wheelset with heavy...

Thanks for chiming in, Dave. I think you described my impressions perfectly, I have a light wheelset with light tires and a heavy wheelset with heavy tires and the light tires feel worse in every way over bumps and chatter. I feel like I'm getting kicked around a lot more, and with the heavier wheels I'm tracking so much better and the ride is so much smoother.

Now, of course the performance of the tires themselves is different, so I suppose the real test would be to glue lead weights onto my light wheels with lights tires and see how they feel. But I wouldn't be surprised if they felt better with weight. I think added upsprung weight helps push more force through the tire, using the tire as a spring before the force ever reaches the chassis.

That's my reverse engineering, anyone, from my ride observations. Would be fun to test.

Dave_Camp wrote:

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the...

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the rear wheel.  The unsprung weight on the rear end is probably about 5kg- wheel, tire, brake caliper, cassette, derailleur, chainstay/seatstay, link etc.  250g is a small % change.

 

Another thing I didn't see any discussion about is the fact that the tire is kind of suspension for the wheel.  A heavier wheel might make the tire work harder and filter out some vibration before it can even get to the axle.  Think about a 10kg wheel- might filter out all the high frequency vibration because the tire can't move it at that frequency.

 

The sprung/un-sprung discussion is mostly academic anyway- you have to run good tires and wheels/brakes/drivetrain for your application.  The weight is what it is- might save a few hundred grams by throwing money at it, but it's not going to be a big change either way.  

 

TEAMROBOT wrote:

Thanks for chiming in, Dave. I think you described my impressions perfectly, I have a light wheelset with light tires and a heavy wheelset with heavy...

Thanks for chiming in, Dave. I think you described my impressions perfectly, I have a light wheelset with light tires and a heavy wheelset with heavy tires and the light tires feel worse in every way over bumps and chatter. I feel like I'm getting kicked around a lot more, and with the heavier wheels I'm tracking so much better and the ride is so much smoother.

Now, of course the performance of the tires themselves is different, so I suppose the real test would be to glue lead weights onto my light wheels with lights tires and see how they feel. But I wouldn't be surprised if they felt better with weight. I think added upsprung weight helps push more force through the tire, using the tire as a spring before the force ever reaches the chassis.

That's my reverse engineering, anyone, from my ride observations. Would be fun to test.

Brian_Peterson wrote:

Try putting light tires on heavier wheelset.. Or here's taking it a to testing level.. Light tires, heavy wheels vs heavy tires with light wheels  but...

Try putting light tires on heavier wheelset.. Or here's taking it a to testing level.. Light tires, heavy wheels vs heavy tires with light wheels  but try to get the weights close to each other. At point, my thoughts are that tires will play a bigger role in the handling and feel than the overall weight of the wheels..

faxxe wrote:

They surely do. It's the sidewall support on heavier tires you'll notice most

Dave_Camp wrote:

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the...

Late to the discussion- but I think you'd have to be a pretty good rider doing A-B-A-B testing to feel 250g of unsprung weight on the rear wheel.  The unsprung weight on the rear end is probably about 5kg- wheel, tire, brake caliper, cassette, derailleur, chainstay/seatstay, link etc.  250g is a small % change.

 

Another thing I didn't see any discussion about is the fact that the tire is kind of suspension for the wheel.  A heavier wheel might make the tire work harder and filter out some vibration before it can even get to the axle.  Think about a 10kg wheel- might filter out all the high frequency vibration because the tire can't move it at that frequency.

 

The sprung/un-sprung discussion is mostly academic anyway- you have to run good tires and wheels/brakes/drivetrain for your application.  The weight is what it is- might save a few hundred grams by throwing money at it, but it's not going to be a big change either way.  

 

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't...

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't guaranteed to be a negative thing. Plus like you say, heavier wheels normally bring more performance gain realative to the weight change. I've always felt most people could easily "sacrifice" a kg or 2 over the whole bike and gain a MASSIVE amount of performance and/or reliability with zero drawbacks but its hard to convince riders of that.....

 

Neko Mullaly did a video exactly on this a few years ago, I believe it was something like -

"heavy"/aggressive set up , eg dh tyres and coil suspension - this was fastest 

"light" set up - slower

"light" set up with weight added to make it the same is the heavy bike - barely any change in speed, maybe even fractionally faster? It was done well enough that the results were quite relevant IMO

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't...

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't guaranteed to be a negative thing. Plus like you say, heavier wheels normally bring more performance gain realative to the weight change. I've always felt most people could easily "sacrifice" a kg or 2 over the whole bike and gain a MASSIVE amount of performance and/or reliability with zero drawbacks but its hard to convince riders of that.....

 

Neko Mullaly did a video exactly on this a few years ago, I believe it was something like -

"heavy"/aggressive set up , eg dh tyres and coil suspension - this was fastest 

"light" set up - slower

"light" set up with weight added to make it the same is the heavy bike - barely any change in speed, maybe even fractionally faster? It was done well enough that the results were quite relevant IMO

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't...

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't guaranteed to be a negative thing. Plus like you say, heavier wheels normally bring more performance gain realative to the weight change. I've always felt most people could easily "sacrifice" a kg or 2 over the whole bike and gain a MASSIVE amount of performance and/or reliability with zero drawbacks but its hard to convince riders of that.....

 

Neko Mullaly did a video exactly on this a few years ago, I believe it was something like -

"heavy"/aggressive set up , eg dh tyres and coil suspension - this was fastest 

"light" set up - slower

"light" set up with weight added to make it the same is the heavy bike - barely any change in speed, maybe even fractionally faster? It was done well enough that the results were quite relevant IMO

CascadeComponents wrote:

The other tricky thing with tires is there’s always the question of what pressure and how stiff of a tire do you need. If you just...

The other tricky thing with tires is there’s always the question of what pressure and how stiff of a tire do you need. If you just needed to crush 12 mm tall chatter then low pressure, flexible tire, and super heavy wheel would be very smooth. But then it falls apart as you hit anything bigger. I know I certainly end up somewhere in the middle where it’s a little chattery on the really high frequency stuff but then I’ll pinch the sidewall hitting something taller. Not something that can be won on all fronts. The lack of sidewall height on bike tires kind of limits how much they can influence suspension tuning compared to other vehicles. With an off road race truck you pretty much don’t have to worry about tuning the shocks for small bump because the tires can eat a 10” tall bump if they have to. 

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't...

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't guaranteed to be a negative thing. Plus like you say, heavier wheels normally bring more performance gain realative to the weight change. I've always felt most people could easily "sacrifice" a kg or 2 over the whole bike and gain a MASSIVE amount of performance and/or reliability with zero drawbacks but its hard to convince riders of that.....

 

Neko Mullaly did a video exactly on this a few years ago, I believe it was something like -

"heavy"/aggressive set up , eg dh tyres and coil suspension - this was fastest 

"light" set up - slower

"light" set up with weight added to make it the same is the heavy bike - barely any change in speed, maybe even fractionally faster? It was done well enough that the results were quite relevant IMO

Dickscruttock wrote:

But Rulezman says.....🤣

marzbomber888 wrote:

My favorite thing is his says “the best or nothing” and he rides a banshee lmaooo 

marzbomber888 wrote:

My favorite thing is his says “the best or nothing” and he rides a banshee lmaooo 

sethimus wrote:

still one of the few frames with proper geo

Karabuka wrote:

I believe the two "oldest" bikes on the market right now are S Enduro (2020) and Banshee Titan (2019) and they are both still perfectly relevant...

I believe the two "oldest" bikes on the market right now are S Enduro (2020) and Banshee Titan (2019) and they are both still perfectly relevant going into 2026...

I'd say Titan became even more popular as the time went by which is pretty funny in modern times but I'd say there are more and more of us who dont really buy into latest trends of blingbling marginal gains and are perfectly happy with a simple, capable, reliable and affordable bike and Banshee ticks all of those.

Brian_Peterson wrote:

Pros.. A T-type DH drivetrain should be more durable. The most vulnerable part is now smaller and replaceable. Cons.. Cost.I agree,  a GX DH setup would be...

Pros.. A T-type DH drivetrain should be more durable. The most vulnerable part is now smaller and replaceable. 

Cons.. Cost.

I agree,  a GX DH setup would be my choice. Maybe throw on a XO shifter if I wanted to splurge a bit. Spending the extra money on things that are more important for DH.

Crazy/ stupid idea.. With 148 showing up on more DH bikes, how about singlespeed with a Classified rear hub?

TheSuspensionLabNZ wrote:

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't...

Yeah this was going to be by next point - heavier wheels can make the tyre stick to the ground better (to a point) so isn't guaranteed to be a negative thing. Plus like you say, heavier wheels normally bring more performance gain realative to the weight change. I've always felt most people could easily "sacrifice" a kg or 2 over the whole bike and gain a MASSIVE amount of performance and/or reliability with zero drawbacks but its hard to convince riders of that.....

 

Neko Mullaly did a video exactly on this a few years ago, I believe it was something like -

"heavy"/aggressive set up , eg dh tyres and coil suspension - this was fastest 

"light" set up - slower

"light" set up with weight added to make it the same is the heavy bike - barely any change in speed, maybe even fractionally faster? It was done well enough that the results were quite relevant IMO

CascadeComponents wrote:

The other tricky thing with tires is there’s always the question of what pressure and how stiff of a tire do you need. If you just...

The other tricky thing with tires is there’s always the question of what pressure and how stiff of a tire do you need. If you just needed to crush 12 mm tall chatter then low pressure, flexible tire, and super heavy wheel would be very smooth. But then it falls apart as you hit anything bigger. I know I certainly end up somewhere in the middle where it’s a little chattery on the really high frequency stuff but then I’ll pinch the sidewall hitting something taller. Not something that can be won on all fronts. The lack of sidewall height on bike tires kind of limits how much they can influence suspension tuning compared to other vehicles. With an off road race truck you pretty much don’t have to worry about tuning the shocks for small bump because the tires can eat a 10” tall bump if they have to. 

SteveClimber wrote:

It depends if your racing or not really. A lot of people set up their bikes for comfort on their regular trails. If your racing you just...

It depends if your racing or not really. A lot of people set up their bikes for comfort on their regular trails. 

If your racing you just want to maximise cornering speed, so if it rattles your teeth out over some rocky chatter, just hold on as it worth it to exit the corner faster and save 0.5s on the next straight. Obviously have it high enough to not wreck a rim or pinch flat on the way down. 

Remember when Neko made his carbon rear end to the DH bike, and was hopeful it would improve suspension performance because of the lower sprung mass, even he was like, yeah I can't feel a difference. But the rear end did provide other benefits. 

shreda wrote:

On the Raaw E-Bike topic: This is quite interesting...https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hepha-gmbh-ebike_hepha-raaw-hephaxraaw-activity-7397144203723673600-hPgN 

On the Raaw E-Bike topic: This is quite interesting...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hepha-gmbh-ebike_hepha-raaw-hephaxraaw-activity-7397144203723673600-hPgN

 

bikelurker wrote:

What are we considering as a "heavy wheelset" in the context of this conversation?

bikelurker wrote:

What are we considering as a "heavy wheelset" in the context of this conversation?

monarchmason wrote:

Thats a good question. Curious about this too. Once upon a time I had a heavy WTB wheel set and WTB tires. The wheelset went on...

Thats a good question. Curious about this too. Once upon a time I had a heavy WTB wheel set and WTB tires. The wheelset went on 2 bikes and in hindsight there were my favorite performing bikes. I thought it was just the frames, but now Im kind of thinking it may be the wheels after reading this. 

Kapolczer wrote:

Posting this in both Tech Rumors threads for visibility.Looks like a new/updated ohlins rear shock, as well as a different airspring top cap on the updated...

Posting this in both Tech Rumors threads for visibility.

Looks like a new/updated ohlins rear shock, as well as a different airspring top cap on the updated fork.

dancingwithmyself wrote:

Combining some 2024-2025 redux and hopes for 2026, are there any rumors on consumer-focused data acquisition systems a la Motion Instruments - something much more accurate...

Combining some 2024-2025 redux and hopes for 2026, are there any rumors on consumer-focused data acquisition systems a la Motion Instruments - something much more accurate and useful than Shockwiz, but not nearly as complex as what's currently available.  

Anybody know if Spesh is considering doing anything with MI other than sitting on the IP?  Maybe integrating it into their bikes in some sort of proprietary fashion?  Been quiet for quite some time.

dancingwithmyself wrote:

Combining some 2024-2025 redux and hopes for 2026, are there any rumors on consumer-focused data acquisition systems a la Motion Instruments - something much more accurate...

Combining some 2024-2025 redux and hopes for 2026, are there any rumors on consumer-focused data acquisition systems a la Motion Instruments - something much more accurate and useful than Shockwiz, but not nearly as complex as what's currently available.  

Anybody know if Spesh is considering doing anything with MI other than sitting on the IP?  Maybe integrating it into their bikes in some sort of proprietary fashion?  Been quiet for quite some time.

Goupil wrote:

Now the question is how many chainstay length debate can we fit here before the end of the year? 

Brian_Peterson wrote:

I think the real question is "What's the next geometry number to be debated? " I think they have all been covered at this point..  Maybe...

I think the real question is "What's the next geometry number to be debated? " I think they have all been covered at this point..  Maybe we can debate the 1.8 ratio?