Posts
559
Joined
4/16/2024
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
US
I for one am a huge proponent of modular bikes. I love the freedom they give riders to adapt their bikes to changing riding styles, trips or moves to different regions, and (hopefully) a better bargain as brands can lower design and production costs.
I still don’t really understand what people have against them. The Rallon seems to me to demonstrate how amazing an enduro/DH combo can be, and my experience with stumpys has shown me that two bikes can cover 4-5 categories of riding with ease.
So what do you think?
I think if the overlap is close and well thought out it’s possible and can be good. Overall though I’m not a fan. Majority (and in my opinion +95%) aren’t drastically changing their bikes. Really how many people are going to buy the Rallon and a spare fork, proper DH drivetrain, different shock, etc and swap all that crap out do make it a DH bike for 2 months in the summer? Not to mention if you do an extend trip to any lift service destination you probably want an enduro and a DH bike.
I think it makes more sense for manufacturers to make one main frame that can cover 2-3 bikes each set up 2-3 ways and have a competitive price.
Back to the Santa Cruz conversation and mullets; it's probably true that just doing a flip chip with dual link suspension probably affects too many other variables since pivot positioning is very sensitive for these designs. That being said, it could probably be done reusing the expensive front and rear triangles with custom links. That way they could preserve the Megatower and Nomad as individual models by machining separate links and reusing the carbon molds
I think that the second part of your comment is exactly what I consider to be modular. People are still assuming the manufacturers are imagining people changing the bike over from enduro to DH in the parking lot between laps, but it’s more about a win-win for brands and riders: frames that do double or triple duty as a cost benefit and frames that are super adaptable and versatile with just a couple different parts to give riders more flexibility.
Having owned a modular frame (GG carbon), I think it only makes sense within 10% travel. Beyond that, the frame feel gets out of whack, and the geo starts to get compromised. So like a chassis that takes a 60-65mm shock and another one for a 50-55mm, with maybe 20-30mm off fork travel range. I'd also say they need to design for the high end of the travel, as people who tend to short travel their bikes are aware that they reducing descending performance to get more efficiency or pop. Going shorter from baseline deliberately helps geo (lower BB, steeper angles) but going longer travel raises BB, shortens reach, slackens the seat, and lengthens wheelbase for the positives of slacker front and more travel.
The Rallon is the holy grail when it comes to bike trips on planes. Just run a wide range drivetrain in the bike park, and bring a link, shock, and single crown fork to swap out for enduro days. Gotta have RaceFace or Hope hubs to swap the end caps from 20mm to 15mm. It’d be hard to get the weight below 70lbs for the airline with the fork in the bag so I’d just compress the single crown fork all the way down and put it in my suitcase. Renting bikes is so expensive that this setup could be common amongst the niche of a niche flying with their bike.
A point I rarely see addressed in regards to modular bikes is that you also have the "inbetween" option now. Take the Rallon for example. Lots of us want big bikes but have no intention on racing them, so a Rallon with a dual crown, a 10-44 cassette on an xplr derailleur, paired with some less burly rims, a water bottle cage, and a full sized dropper. Not a DH race sled, not an enduro epic, but something dedicated to having fun at the park.
The modularity is cool, the ability to build a one off dedicated purpose built bike is cooler.
That’s what I’m saying!!! Some people will just want an enduro Rallon. Some will just want a DH rallon. But some of us want freak bikes that lie somewhere in the middle. And until that superenduro category grows, modular bikes let people craft their own rig.
I also want to see more bikes that have modular dropouts for different CS lengths, different adjustments for kinematics, etc. that fasterossa bike is sick with it’s different shock mounting travel adjustments, and it looks to be sick in every setup…
I have an enduro Rallon coming, with an extra DH link. I have an extra shock already. Now I can have a pedal able bike with 180mm front and 200mm rear. If I really like that direction and want more oomph, I might look for a dual crown.
But mainly, it’s nice to have a bike that is heavily adjustable more so than two completely different bikes. And if it keeps our favourite bike brands in business, or passes on cost savings to us, we all win.
A brand that takes this to the extreme is Kavenz. Now I like Kavenz, but having a chassis that goes all the way from a 120mm rear xc trail to 180mm DH bike is a bit insane.
Like I said in the other forum, modularity only really makes sense if it is easy and practical for the end user to make the changes. For most riders, I don't think they'll be willing or motivated to make the changes regularly, swapping shocks and linkages is not something your average rider wants to do. I'm a mechanic professionally and the idea is off putting to me. There's also the weight that modularity can add. You'll have to build the frame to handle the kind of riding that the longest travel setting would imply, and that would leave the shorter travel settings on the heavy side.
Seeing the couple of guys who have Rallons coming in, I would love to hear from you a year after getting the bike to see how much you'll actually swap the shock and link and set it up for DH.
Still not understanding this assumption that it has to be changed regularly. Maybe someone needs a long travel bike. Buys a bike, and then has to relocate for work. Moves to a place with less-sick trails. Orders a link and has a bit more responsive bike.
Or maybe you want a short travel kavenz now but then you realize later that your enduro has too short of chainstays. Sure you could buy another bike but why not just modify the bike you have?
To me, modular bikes allow for future flexibility and adaptability. They also let someone buy a bike who is picky about a certain spec like chainstay length or head tube angle and customize it to their own liking.
There’s already been a lot of great points made in the comments above but I’ll chime in as someone who’s been on a quite modular bike for a few seasons now (Kavenz VHP).
I’ll start by saying 2 things, 1. I love modularity. 2. It’s always a compromise in some way (weight, cost, kinematics, geo, packaging, etc.)
To elaborate on my first point, modularity means more riders can get comfortable on a great bike. There is no shortage of options in the market, and everyone has their personal preferences. Being about to pick a bike you like/identify with for the plethora of reasons and then be able to make some changes to have it suit exactly what you need/want is amazing. For example, I ride the same frame size as my taller friend, because we very have different body proportions, I have short legs and a longer torso and he has long legs and a shorter torso. I ride shorter chainstay and with Mx wheels because that’s what I like, he rides longer chainstays and full 29er. We both love the performance the bike offers, but we run it in slightly different flavours to suit us. I’ve also been able to play with what longer chainstays feel like, and find the limits of where things get too long for me and my riding.
When it comes to being able to make setup swaps “on-the-fly” like add a dual crown fork and longer shock, etc. it will be a select group of people who are willing to do this, but what’s wrong with that? If people can have a set-and-forget setup in either variation, and also be able to switch between as needed, that seems like a win. Living in the PNW, I had my Kavenz setup depending on the season. Summer was bike park season, so it had a dual crown, longer rear shock, but still had the dropper and 12spd drivetrain. The bike ripped up bike park and shuttle laps, and I still took it out to pedal for some bigger rides. Once late fall came around and the bike parks and gnarlier trails weren’t running, I swapped a single crown fork and shorter shock back on to make it more pedal friendly and less brawler.
My last point will be around kinematics. Most of the with modular setups, things like Leverage rates stay pretty similar. Sure, there are some cases where progressively gets negatively impacted, but starting leverage rate stays pretty similar. This means the that in the case of the Kavenz VHP16 (160r/170f) and VHP18 (180r/200f), the bikes had a similar personality, the dual crown fork made a larger change to the feel of the bike than the extra rear travel did because the starting leverage rate didn’t change. Fast forward to this past year where they introduced a Leverage+ rocker link, which increases the starting leverage rate from ~2.9 up to ~3.3. The way that this changes the feel of the bike is substantial, it completely changes the personality of the bike (this is what cascade links does with their links as well). The rear end feels more plush and stuck to the ground, but you do lose some agility and support in return. It just adds another layer to the adjustments you can make, and achieve the performance you’re looking for.
This was all a really long winded way of say that modularity has many forms, be it allowing for different wheel sizes, suspension travel, chainstay lengths, or leverage curves. But IMO, they are all a win for the end consumer. Whatever it is that you identify with, you can also make the changes to fit what you want out of the bike. And no, there’s no free lunches, compromises will be made. I also don’t want every single bike to offer 10 levels of modularity/adjustment. But when done thoughtfully, it not only allows for customers to get a bike that works for them, and experiment to get there, it also hopefully means you get a bike that you can keep for longer (we know companies love you not buying a new bike every year).
Wow very thorough and insightful!!!! Kavenz really get it. Would love to ride one of their bikes. What’s your favorite thing about your bike?
Currently the nomad 6 and megatower 2 share the same front triangle and upper link. The difference is in the lower link and the rear triangle to account for the smaller wheel.
At the end of the day, these sorts of bikes are made for the benefit of the manufacturer, and not as an innovative way to bring value to consumer. Having one frame to cover nearly your entire MTB catalogue is an awesome way to save money during this slump. I think it is important to remember that the average MTB buyer isn't hanging out on the vital forums, and they are likely not even be aware that the Trek Fuel EX they are about to buy can be converted to two other variations.
I am not mad at certain brands for taking this route, I would rather see a company like Trek survive by doing stuff like this than die. With that said, I do think this thing of advertising them as Swiss Army Bikes is marketing to sugar coat what is ultimately a cost cutting measure. If you want a bike that can pedal decently well and go into the bike park, just get a 150/160 bike like a Sentinel, Sight, Bronson, Stumpy Evo etc. Don't buy a 145/150 bike and then buy all new suspension, linkage, and maybe even wheels so that you can occasionally take it in the bike park too.
I agree 100%. Okay, this probably isn't true for a brand like Kavenz, which is a small niche brand targeting a small niche market. But when big brands like Trek drop multiple product lines in favor of one "Swiss Army bike," it's hard for me to read that as anything other than a cost-cutting measure and/or market hedge for the manufacturer. Ditto for a medium-sized brand like Orbea, who's able to amortize their DH bike development costs by selling heaps of enduro and ebikes on that same Rallon platform, instead of just selling a handful of dedicated DH bikes.
Um why do we need separate bikes and industrial design and spare parts just because travel increases by 10mm? What am I, an average rider, missing out on when trek consolidates their front triangles, or even front and rear triangles? A badge? Some cute ID details? Superfluous and insignificant. Geometrons aren’t some compromised sub-par bikes, when you do the math you realize there is massive overlap in multiple categories of bikes, and planning for that and allowing for parts to be interchangeable is SMART not CHEAP
Back when the industry was surprised by 27.5" "taking off" Specialized botched their stock of 26" Stumpjumpers and Enduros with different rear-ends and fork spacers and made some pretty horrible 27.5" bikes. These were NOT great riding bikes. Seemed like a solution made by business people. Somehow SOME modular bikes remind me of this.
The most modular bike I owned (an incredibly beautiful) Last Tarvo/Cinto didn´t wow me. Swapping the rocker also tilted the front triangle and a big bike became a TOO big bike in the process. Also steeper seat tube angles on less travel (and less sag) meant the geo was "peculiar".
The Kavenz between 16 and 18 looks great (and feels great, but I only rode one for an hour). The VHP12 seems a bit funny and I wouldn't want to ride a heavy, bike park rated 120mm bike. But someone might...
Treks new modular bike seems very heavy. We will see, if the emtb-hype will carry on for the next decade and if it truly brings many new customers into the mtb market. (or if these new people stick to gravel and bike paths and realise they don´t need the latest and greatest)
There might be a pedal bike renaissance at some point as well...
As others have said, a few mm of travel difference doesn't change much of what you spec on a bike. Most components come in an XC-race (sometimes also trail/enduro,) and DH option - so why should there be more frames? Geometry has also largely converged with any non-XC/DC bike rocking a super slack head angle and steep seat tube angle with similar reach per size. Why have a 35lb 'trail' bike when you could have a 35lb enduro bike*? And with geometry and suspension getting better for handling bigger hits and longer days, what does a 150mm bike really do that makes it stand out from a 170/180mm bike?
I was recently thinking with all of the industry in a persistent downturn that maybe pedal bikes become an XC/DC thing only, and ebikes dominate the rest of the market. If you add the weight of the battery and motor to a frame you may as well add extra travel/stiffness to the combo since the difference won't be as big and the perceived different is probably smaller (e.g. 2lbs is a smaller percentage of 35 pounds than 25 pounds). Pedal bikes become the market for cheap bikes (commuter/hardtail) and XC race bikes (where weight matters most, and the geo is getting progressive anyways). With that kind of market, it could be forward thinking to have something like the Fuel EX/Orbea Rallon as the sole 'long travel pedal bike' and then have a medium and full power long travel ebike.
*I know weight is not everything, but it's the primary thing that can be measured when considering different components.
I appreciate this thread and a place to appreciate bikes.
Personally, if I had 3k to drop on a Vampire Fastarossa today I'd go pick one up. +1 on being able to build exactly the kind of bike you want. My current norco range with the WRP link is set up 190-180 f/r, and it is entirely too much bike but what I want to be riding. I really appreciate what Chris Canfield is doing making a bike that can truly be a shorter legged enduro rig or a full blown dh race bike.
Funny you should mention the janky 650b Specializeds, as I've been contemplating refurbishing my 2015 Enduro 650b as a fun little 10-year retrospective project. Decidedly not modern as the 26" front end with a 650b wheel/fork meant that reach got a bit short (443mm for a large), STA too slack (74.5*), and the bb a bit high (352mm).
I got retired it mostly because I wanted to experiment with longer reach, but now how short it is almost seems like a selling point. 165mm travel, 65* HTA, 422mm chainstay, and 1188mm wheelbase would be fun as hell. Since I'm a hoarder and have a bunch of unnecessary parts, I could have it rolling with brand new Fox Factory suspension F&R, a 180mm dropper, and new-ish drivetrain for ~$500 total.
I have other bikes to actually do scary things, big pedal days, etc. on, so this seems like it would be a great N+1 for hooning around. It's a stupid use of money, but tempting nonetheless, and still a lot cheaper than even just a new Banshee Spitfire or similar frame-only...
I really really want to think that modular bikes like the Rallon are the "future of mountain biking" but Guerilla Gravity had a great modular bike system that even was made in the USA and they still failed in the end. This makes me think that the concept of modular bikes are doomed to fail. I can see how that would be a plus from a manufacturer standpoint because they want you to buy multiple bikes and make more money BUT a well-educated rider will always have spare parts and ways to change how a bike handles in different regions or tail systems they ride in.
For example with my Spire; I have lighter weight set of trail tires and a set of heavy duty DH tires. I also have a coil shock and an air shock that I can swap out in 2 minutes. Those two changes alone can result in a 3-4 lbs weight difference and that can go a long way towards climbing or descending better depending on what I need from my girl.
GG bikes are horrifically ugly. They also weren’t a big brand with wide distribution. The power of modular bikes comes into play especially when the used market has lots of options floating around. I think I also include wide aftermarket parts availability in my definition of modular: used cascade links and wrp yokes give owners of those bikes cheap ways to modify their bikes to better suit their needs. I know this is kinda far off from the Rallons of the world but it still plays a factor in the modularity conversation. At the very least the existence of Jank, WRP, Cascade, and others points to a desire from the market for increased customization options. I really believe that speci factors these aftermarket options into their product design as it is a definite value add to potential buyers.
Jack of two-three trades, master of none...
I feel like Ibis has done a reasonably good job with the current gen Ripley/Ripmo modular frames. Because they aren't drastically different (130/140, 150/160) bikes, the compromises aren't huge. The Ripley is probably a little heavier than it would be otherwise (but maybe a little stronger/overbuilt) and there are some subtle geometry quirks (low BB on the Ripley - I love it), but it's nice to have a shorter travel bike that I'm not afraid is too fragile. My opinion is that if you don't try to stretch it across too many models/travel categories, it can be a pretty nice compromise.
I'm on the Vital forums so naturally I love tinkering with setups and thus love modular bikes/bikes with aftermarket links. I don't see myself buying a bike without at least one: Cascade link, progression adjust, rear travel adjust/overshock-ability. Setups I've tinkered with in the past:
Nukeproof Giga: progression adjust, 170mm, 180mm lyrik.
Stumpjumper Evo: stock mullet link, WRP yoke, Cascade link. 160mm Lyrik or 170mm Zeb. Also the headset cup should be on every bike. It made zero noise and was super cool to try it out in all 3 settings. Truly was 1 bike to rule them all that was still great in the bike park.
Transition Patrol park bike: 65mm shock for +10mm travel, 180mm Zeb, 200mm Boxxer, Cascade link, Works angleset in steep position
Santa Cruz 5010: Cascade link, 55mm stroke shock for +10 travel, 150mm front, 160mm front
As my quiver has evolved it's been a gamechanger to be able to adapt a bike I already have to a new purpose. For example the 5010 originally was a 130/150mm downcountry bike, but once I traded the Stumpy Evo as my main enduro bike for an ebike I was able to adapt the 5010 to 150/160mm and more of an enduro bike. The industry may be doing it to save money on tooling, but I'd argue this is an instance where both the consumer and the industry win. (unlike wireless only frames which is one sided towards the industry saving money)
I don't think the 5010 was ever a "downcountry" bike. I think it was always an enduro bike in short-travel-trail-bike's clothing. Tallboy was clearly that downcountry bike and Santa Cruz made that distinction pretty clear.
The only reason I didn't get a 5010 as my short travel trail bike is because all the marketing material Santa Cruz put out and all their podcasts they did (Santa Cruz has a podcast called "Roller Door" that's actually pretty cool and goes deep on a lot of different SC bike-related topics) and all the reviews and all the dealers said it's not an "all-day pedal-up-and-down" bike but rather it's a "descend as much as possible and have a great time doing it as long as the riding doesn't get so gnarly it needs more travel" bike.
I was looking for a downcountry mullet. I'm a short leg guy who has mostly XC trails around (that I try to ride like an enduro rider, sprinting rather than looking for efficiency). The people at Santa Cruz, my super-trusted local shop, and the people at multiple online dealers all encouraged me to not look for that with the 5010. They all said get a different bike: Tallboy or a different brand.
You putting enduro-esque things on an enduro-esque bike is akin to you putting pepperoni on a cheese pizza to make a pepperoni pizza; slightly different than it started but also completely in line with what it was.
I think that's at the heart of what modular bikes do and don't do well. If they stay inside one style of riding, the compromises are small or non-existant. I think that's why Rocky Mountain seemed to have a lot of success with their Altitude/Instinct modular bikes; two different flavors of pizza. It's why the new Rallon seems to work great. Single crown pedaling to aggressive downhill riding or uplift to aggressive downhill riding? Which flavor of pizza?
You're going to have a hard time making an XC/downcountry bike (which is just XC but relaxed) into a trail bike the same way you'll have a hard time reconfiguring a caprese salad with croutons into a pizza.
I’m understand that people said the 5010 is not a downcountry bike but I’m curious what makes it not a downcountry bike? Is there a specific quality about it or is this just in peoples heads?
Edit to add: I ask because I never listen to the marketing people. Often times they are forced to “differentiate” bikes that are “not all that different” and they also have to sell bikes that “aren’t selling all that well.” I look at the quantitative elements of a bikes design, the numbers don’t lie. I suppose that a 5010 probably has lower anti-squat than a tallboy but that’s a minor quibble solved by flipping a switch on a shock, forming up the tune or spring rate, or just adapting (get stronger
My definition of "downcountry" is a bike you'd actually ride at a bike park. (the "down" part of the portmanteau of "downhill" and "cross country")
What I was told by the folks at a local Santa Cruz dealer and online bike shops when I asked about 5010 vs other bikes:
Rider CoG is more ideal with the 5010 pointed down than with the bike oriented flat or pointed up.
Suspension tune and kinematic on the 5010 favors handling compressions more than it favors pedaling.
In comparison to the Tallboy or other brand 29er downcountry bike, 5010 is significantly slower on flat or when climbing. In comparison to the Tallboy or other brand 29er downcountry bike, 5010 is significantly more agile, controllable, and faster when going down.
In comparison to the Tallboy or other brand 29er downcountry bike, 5010 requires much more precision and CoG manipulation for flat cornering whereas 29er downcountry bikes put your CoG in the correct place for flat cornering much more of the time.
Places that should have been desperate for me to buy ANY bike from them didn't want to sell me a 5010 at a pretty good spec and instead suggested similar-priced and cheaper bikes that they said would be better for downcountry style riding. Then I looked into all the marketing and the podcasts and the reviews and they said similar: 5010 is a very maneuverable, playful, capable, enduro-lite short travel bike.
I think the accepted otherwise definition of "downcountry" is cross country bike that can go down a little better than a standard cross country bike. The "country" part of the portmanteau.
...further backed up by the geometry of most downcountry bikes being more similar to cross country bikes than to enduro or downhill bikes.
...and the parts specs on those downcountry bikes is often aimed at being lighter/faster rather than aimed at being heavy and capable of big features.
Back to that pepperoni pizza analogy (adjective->noun construction of a compound noun): it's a pizza with pepperoni rather than a big pile of pepperoni that has pizza mixed in. A pepperoni type of pizza dish and downhill type of cross country bike.
I'm happy to be wrong if I've misunderstood something. In this case, I don't think I have.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/what-the-heck-is-a-down-country-bike-opinion.html
https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/what-is-a-downcountry-mountain-bike?srsltid=AfmBOordYfwyoRVzwUourRBJO0f1g00yIb_hwaVeQ7Wf1qSkspHrPm36
https://www.simplon.com/en/About-us/Magazine/Down-country-bikes_bba_407174
https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/best-downcountry-mountain-bikes
https://www.bikemag.com/how-to/is-xc-the-best-bike-for-you#building-the-perfect-short-travel-trail-bike
Post a reply to: Modular Bikes: Evolution or Devolution?