TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer...
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer not before. So it could be the reason.
It is a shame for Santa to go away from the VPP system ... :-(
I always saw VPP as Santa Cruz's USP. If it's Yet Another Plain Old Horst Link, what am I getting other than the name that makes it exceptional?
Engineers at Scott must be going insane after finding out Specialized has beaten them at making the most complicated MTB to service, the next Gambler will...
Engineers at Scott must be going insane after finding out Specialized has beaten them at making the most complicated MTB to service, the next Gambler will have 32 pivots in retaliation
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer...
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer not before. So it could be the reason.
It is a shame for Santa to go away from the VPP system ... :-(
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer...
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer not before. So it could be the reason.
It is a shame for Santa to go away from the VPP system ... :-(
Kind of hilarious that the marketing line is that "you don't have to deal with the complications of a normal idler" - like this isn't the...
Kind of hilarious that the marketing line is that "you don't have to deal with the complications of a normal idler" - like this isn't the world's most complicated bike 😂
I think the highgear thing is cool but the design of the frame around the bottom bracket seems a bit awkward. Even with the frame protection I don’t like those thin-ish carbon edges. The fully open linkage area is also a concern - yes mud can get in and out, but in UK winter conditions all of those interior surfaces are going to get wrecked by any fine dirt and sand that gets left in there. Not to mention it's going to be a pain to get in and clean it all out.
is this gonna be a daily driver in „UK winter conditions“ though?
Honda's deraileur-in-a-box patent has recently expired https://patents.google.com/patent/US7503862B2/en. I had another look at DW's "adjacent drive assembly" patent that looks similar to the specialized and have seen...
I had another look at DW's "adjacent drive assembly" patent that looks similar to the specialized and have seen that there are fillings that have been withdrawn and amended with different claims. The latest is pending with the US and has been withdrawn from the Europe patent application process, probably because it's difficult to make a unique claim when so many bikes with gearboxes and jack shaft arrangements have been on the market.
Something a lot of us probably didn't think about.. It would be hard to get, or uphold in court, a patent on something that has been done for years.. Decades even.. But, the original DW link patent has some pretty crazy variations in it...
Same concept for sure! This one is just using the WP adjustable one instead of Showas but same thing. It's a rad thing to try. I must say I am quite intrigued.
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of the various ebike to dh bike conversions that are a part of racing these days.
Is there a future where pedal bikes either take on the form of ebikes, but with bb assemblies that bolt into the motor mounts?
Is or would that potentially be a problem for the various groups of consumers? The average consumer vs the die hard vs tip of the spear of performance chasers?
Do we think that would create problems for overall bike development and design? Would this make pedal bikes better or worse overall, and what about ebikes... would this impact ebike frame development in a good or a bad way?
I can see a certain logic to this as many brands are spending a lot of time developing their suspension packaging, kinematics and frame design around primarily ebikes... and there is efficiency and economics of scale doing it this way. Beyond that, there could be performance benefits of having flexibility in the bb placement and being able to adjust or add weight etc.
Doesn't a VPP shock tunnel eliminate both of the other two? Besides, is dropper insertion such a big deal on an XC bike?
Pure conjecture, but I get the impression that VPP works best on long travel bikes. The Tallboy is kinda marketed as a “downhiller’s trail bike” so I wonder if they’re taking what they learned from the e-bikes for suspension design and prioritizing dropper insertion because at that travel bracket geometry matters more than suspension performance.
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of...
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of the various ebike to dh bike conversions that are a part of racing these days.
Is there a future where pedal bikes either take on the form of ebikes, but with bb assemblies that bolt into the motor mounts?
Is or would that potentially be a problem for the various groups of consumers? The average consumer vs the die hard vs tip of the spear of performance chasers?
Do we think that would create problems for overall bike development and design? Would this make pedal bikes better or worse overall, and what about ebikes... would this impact ebike frame development in a good or a bad way?
I can see a certain logic to this as many brands are spending a lot of time developing their suspension packaging, kinematics and frame design around primarily ebikes... and there is efficiency and economics of scale doing it this way. Beyond that, there could be performance benefits of having flexibility in the bb placement and being able to adjust or add weight etc.
That Demo mule based off the Levo was made as such because removing the motor gave the ideal chance to trry out a mule where you don't have a BB but have strong mounting points in the vicinity. If ebikes weren't a thing, they'd probably make a mule mule, not just the drivetrain proto and slap it onto an ebike frame without a motor and battery.
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And...
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-
How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And is it just me or is the DS crank hanging waaaaay out from the BB bearing? I guess if they've gone back to a steel spindle it might be ok, but I would still be nervous about a worn BB scoring the spindle and causing a failure
Engineers at Scott must be going insane after finding out Specialized has beaten them at making the most complicated MTB to service, the next Gambler will...
Engineers at Scott must be going insane after finding out Specialized has beaten them at making the most complicated MTB to service, the next Gambler will have 32 pivots in retaliation
No, the Scott engineers are furious because Specialized added so many new links but didn't seal them inside the frame. They're yelling at their screen right now, "Just make it look like a pregnant whale! It's so easy!"
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of...
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of the various ebike to dh bike conversions that are a part of racing these days.
Is there a future where pedal bikes either take on the form of ebikes, but with bb assemblies that bolt into the motor mounts?
Is or would that potentially be a problem for the various groups of consumers? The average consumer vs the die hard vs tip of the spear of performance chasers?
Do we think that would create problems for overall bike development and design? Would this make pedal bikes better or worse overall, and what about ebikes... would this impact ebike frame development in a good or a bad way?
I can see a certain logic to this as many brands are spending a lot of time developing their suspension packaging, kinematics and frame design around primarily ebikes... and there is efficiency and economics of scale doing it this way. Beyond that, there could be performance benefits of having flexibility in the bb placement and being able to adjust or add weight etc.
Good questions! I had a great conversation with Kiran MacKinnon of Santa Cruz Bikes at Sea Otter (and it should be published as a podcast at some point), and he said that because e-bike frames have to be so much stiffer than pedal bikes, taking the motor and battery out basically produces a bike that rides like a block of wood (i.e. overly stiff and harsh over bumps).
That doesn't mean that an e-bike with the motor removed is unridable (i.e. Martin Maes racing DH on the e-Wild frame as a development project for the new Rallon DH bike), but it's a big performance compromise, especially at a time where "engineered compliance" is such a big buzzword in the industry. That was actually what we were talking about, with the new slimmer downtube on the Nomad, when we ended up talking about big e-bike downtubes.
Because of the necessary increases in frame stiffness for good e-bike handling, I don't think a dedicated hybrid pedal/e-bike frame would pencil out, unless you did a lot of crazy things to tune or adjust stiffness when you added or removed a motor, like the removable seatstay braces on many current DH bikes.
For the foreseeable future, I think the main benefit of a dedicated motor-replacement/BB assembly will be its ability to get old broken down e-bikes back out on the trails.
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer...
TQ is developing a new motor, a bit smaller/lighter than the current one but with 100 Nm if I am correct. I should be out next summer not before. So it could be the reason.
It is a shame for Santa to go away from the VPP system ... :-(
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And...
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-
How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And is it just me or is the DS crank hanging waaaaay out from the BB bearing? I guess if they've gone back to a steel spindle it might be ok, but I would still be nervous about a worn BB scoring the spindle and causing a failure
Good questions! I had a great conversation with Kiran MacKinnon of Santa Cruz Bikes at Sea Otter (and it should be published as a podcast at...
Good questions! I had a great conversation with Kiran MacKinnon of Santa Cruz Bikes at Sea Otter (and it should be published as a podcast at some point), and he said that because e-bike frames have to be so much stiffer than pedal bikes, taking the motor and battery out basically produces a bike that rides like a block of wood (i.e. overly stiff and harsh over bumps).
That doesn't mean that an e-bike with the motor removed is unridable (i.e. Martin Maes racing DH on the e-Wild frame as a development project for the new Rallon DH bike), but it's a big performance compromise, especially at a time where "engineered compliance" is such a big buzzword in the industry. That was actually what we were talking about, with the new slimmer downtube on the Nomad, when we ended up talking about big e-bike downtubes.
Because of the necessary increases in frame stiffness for good e-bike handling, I don't think a dedicated hybrid pedal/e-bike frame would pencil out, unless you did a lot of crazy things to tune or adjust stiffness when you added or removed a motor, like the removable seatstay braces on many current DH bikes.
For the foreseeable future, I think the main benefit of a dedicated motor-replacement/BB assembly will be its ability to get old broken down e-bikes back out on the trails.
For what it’s worth, the rear triangle on Alden’s Crestline e-bike frame that has been converted to a dh is being made stiffer for him. Provided he’s a tall guy riding hard.
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And...
I skimmed through (both) service manuals, and there is...........a lot. 🧐 I'm still not sure about a couple of things-
How is the BB bearings preloaded/adjusted? And is it just me or is the DS crank hanging waaaaay out from the BB bearing? I guess if they've gone back to a steel spindle it might be ok, but I would still be nervous about a worn BB scoring the spindle and causing a failure
From the outset, the core challenge was clear: transmitting full downhill sprint and impact loads through an extremely compact system. Traditional solutions such as belts or meshing gears were quickly ruled out due to inefficiency, packaging limitations, suspension constraints, and durability concerns. Chains remained the most efficient and proven option, but early analysis showed that a single chain could not withstand elite downhill loads within the desired compact gearing and envelope.
That insight led to the project’s defining architectural decision: a two chain system. Two parallel chains could theoretically share the load, but ensuring equal load distribution introduced a new challenge. Variations in tolerances, chain stretch, and alignment could easily cause one chain to carry more load than the other. Solving this required extensive research into chain roller behavior, tooth interaction, and load sharing, supported by repeated lab testing.
From the outset, the core challenge was clear: transmitting full downhill sprint and impact loads through an extremely compact system. Traditional solutions such as belts or meshing gears were quickly ruled out due to inefficiency, packaging limitations, suspension constraints, and durability concerns. Chains remained the most efficient and proven option, but early analysis showed that a single chain could not withstand elite downhill loads within the desired compact gearing and envelope.
That insight led to the project’s defining architectural decision: a two chain system. Two parallel chains could theoretically share the load, but ensuring equal load distribution introduced a new challenge. Variations in tolerances, chain stretch, and alignment could easily cause one chain to carry more load than the other. Solving this required extensive research into chain roller behavior, tooth interaction, and load sharing, supported by repeated lab testing.
interesting that the two drive chains are not standard off the shelf.
From the outset, the core challenge was clear: transmitting full downhill sprint and impact loads through an extremely compact system. Traditional solutions such as belts or meshing gears were quickly ruled out due to inefficiency, packaging limitations, suspension constraints, and durability concerns. Chains remained the most efficient and proven option, but early analysis showed that a single chain could not withstand elite downhill loads within the desired compact gearing and envelope.
That insight led to the project’s defining architectural decision: a two chain system. Two parallel chains could theoretically share the load, but ensuring equal load distribution introduced a new challenge. Variations in tolerances, chain stretch, and alignment could easily cause one chain to carry more load than the other. Solving this required extensive research into chain roller behavior, tooth interaction, and load sharing, supported by repeated lab testing.
I have very limited (none) education in engineering, and i still can't understand the need for two chains? To snap a chain in a straight line demands more force than a sprint from the start gate.
From the outset, the core challenge was clear: transmitting full downhill sprint and impact loads through an extremely compact system. Traditional solutions such as belts or meshing gears were quickly ruled out due to inefficiency, packaging limitations, suspension constraints, and durability concerns. Chains remained the most efficient and proven option, but early analysis showed that a single chain could not withstand elite downhill loads within the desired compact gearing and envelope.
That insight led to the project’s defining architectural decision: a two chain system. Two parallel chains could theoretically share the load, but ensuring equal load distribution introduced a new challenge. Variations in tolerances, chain stretch, and alignment could easily cause one chain to carry more load than the other. Solving this required extensive research into chain roller behavior, tooth interaction, and load sharing, supported by repeated lab testing.
I have very limited (none) education in engineering, and i still can't understand the need for two chains? To snap a chain in a straight line...
I have very limited (none) education in engineering, and i still can't understand the need for two chains? To snap a chain in a straight line demands more force than a sprint from the start gate.
So please internet, give me some answears!
My assumption is to split the load to two sets of chain gears for slower wear and longer service intervals.
The smaller the chainrings are, the higher the forces in the chain for a given power load. Because the two primary chainrings are fairly small (around 20t), the loads in the chain are high. Thus, apparently, the need for two of them. So it's not a patent circumvention thing...
I always saw VPP as Santa Cruz's USP. If it's Yet Another Plain Old Horst Link, what am I getting other than the name that makes it exceptional?
<writes down "retaliation pivots" for later>
Build quality? Lifetime bearing replacement?
Still — can you create this feeling of infinity travel / bottomless shock like you have with the VPP ? That’s what is cool with this design.
is this gonna be a daily driver in „UK winter conditions“ though?
Something a lot of us probably didn't think about.. It would be hard to get, or uphold in court, a patent on something that has been done for years.. Decades even.. But, the original DW link patent has some pretty crazy variations in it...
I'm pretty sure it's a case of: Motor, VPP Shock tunnel, dropper insertion, Pick 2.
Looks similar to what Honda uses on a CRF..
Same concept for sure! This one is just using the WP adjustable one instead of Showas but same thing. It's a rad thing to try. I must say I am quite intrigued.
I guess it is about time for steering dampers to make a comeback..
They already have. I have 2 Pademlon dampers. One on my V10 and one on my 160. I love them.
Page 100 folks. Already a tenth of the way to the third version of Tech Rumors!
Question(s) for the group at large that pops into my head when I see these pedal bike development mules that are ebikes, and based off of the various ebike to dh bike conversions that are a part of racing these days.
Do we think that would create problems for overall bike development and design? Would this make pedal bikes better or worse overall, and what about ebikes... would this impact ebike frame development in a good or a bad way?
I can see a certain logic to this as many brands are spending a lot of time developing their suspension packaging, kinematics and frame design around primarily ebikes... and there is efficiency and economics of scale doing it this way. Beyond that, there could be performance benefits of having flexibility in the bb placement and being able to adjust or add weight etc.
Doesn't a VPP shock tunnel eliminate both of the other two? Besides, is dropper insertion such a big deal on an XC bike?
Pure conjecture, but I get the impression that VPP works best on long travel bikes. The Tallboy is kinda marketed as a “downhiller’s trail bike” so I wonder if they’re taking what they learned from the e-bikes for suspension design and prioritizing dropper insertion because at that travel bracket geometry matters more than suspension performance.
That Demo mule based off the Levo was made as such because removing the motor gave the ideal chance to trry out a mule where you don't have a BB but have strong mounting points in the vicinity. If ebikes weren't a thing, they'd probably make a mule mule, not just the drivetrain proto and slap it onto an ebike frame without a motor and battery.
“Hey do you guys have a spare HighGear perimeter seal and lower case bolt o-ring in stock? I’ve got a race this weekend.”
No, the Scott engineers are furious because Specialized added so many new links but didn't seal them inside the frame. They're yelling at their screen right now, "Just make it look like a pregnant whale! It's so easy!"
crestline entered the chat
Good questions! I had a great conversation with Kiran MacKinnon of Santa Cruz Bikes at Sea Otter (and it should be published as a podcast at some point), and he said that because e-bike frames have to be so much stiffer than pedal bikes, taking the motor and battery out basically produces a bike that rides like a block of wood (i.e. overly stiff and harsh over bumps).
That doesn't mean that an e-bike with the motor removed is unridable (i.e. Martin Maes racing DH on the e-Wild frame as a development project for the new Rallon DH bike), but it's a big performance compromise, especially at a time where "engineered compliance" is such a big buzzword in the industry. That was actually what we were talking about, with the new slimmer downtube on the Nomad, when we ended up talking about big e-bike downtubes.
Because of the necessary increases in frame stiffness for good e-bike handling, I don't think a dedicated hybrid pedal/e-bike frame would pencil out, unless you did a lot of crazy things to tune or adjust stiffness when you added or removed a motor, like the removable seatstay braces on many current DH bikes.
For the foreseeable future, I think the main benefit of a dedicated motor-replacement/BB assembly will be its ability to get old broken down e-bikes back out on the trails.
Buying a Santa Cruz usually costs a bit more, but there are some legitimate reasons other than VPP to buy one.
Has specialized provided an explanation for why there are 2 chains hidden in the frame, rather than 1?
The 4 chainrings and 2 tension idlers is a lot going on - seems like there must be a good reason?
For what it’s worth, the rear triangle on Alden’s Crestline e-bike frame that has been converted to a dh is being made stiffer for him. Provided he’s a tall guy riding hard.
https://www.sram.com/en/life/stories/specialized-highgear-co-development
From the outset, the core challenge was clear: transmitting full downhill sprint and impact loads through an extremely compact system. Traditional solutions such as belts or meshing gears were quickly ruled out due to inefficiency, packaging limitations, suspension constraints, and durability concerns. Chains remained the most efficient and proven option, but early analysis showed that a single chain could not withstand elite downhill loads within the desired compact gearing and envelope.
That insight led to the project’s defining architectural decision: a two chain system. Two parallel chains could theoretically share the load, but ensuring equal load distribution introduced a new challenge. Variations in tolerances, chain stretch, and alignment could easily cause one chain to carry more load than the other. Solving this required extensive research into chain roller behavior, tooth interaction, and load sharing, supported by repeated lab testing.
interesting that the two drive chains are not standard off the shelf.
MrTi on pinkbike has a lot more on this. The integrated seat post topper is also a nice touch.
I have very limited (none) education in engineering, and i still can't understand the need for two chains? To snap a chain in a straight line demands more force than a sprint from the start gate.
So please internet, give me some answears!
My assumption is to split the load to two sets of chain gears for slower wear and longer service intervals.
The smaller the chainrings are, the higher the forces in the chain for a given power load. Because the two primary chainrings are fairly small (around 20t), the loads in the chain are high. Thus, apparently, the need for two of them. So it's not a patent circumvention thing...
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker