Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)
If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different model of bike at that point? Won’t the S with 27.5r and 29f ride totally different than the XL with 29r and 32f even if it’s same frame/travel?
I’ve played around with mullet and full 29 on multiple bikes and also overstroking/Cascade link to change rear travel and of those 2 I’d have to say changing the rear wheel size had a bigger noticeable effect on the overall riding experience.
Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different...
Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)
If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different model of bike at that point? Won’t the S with 27.5r and 29f ride totally different than the XL with 29r and 32f even if it’s same frame/travel?
I’ve played around with mullet and full 29 on multiple bikes and also overstroking/Cascade link to change rear travel and of those 2 I’d have to say changing the rear wheel size had a bigger noticeable effect on the overall riding experience.
The pursuit of proportionality is completely arbitrary. Imagine if Minnaar’s bike shared all the same proportions to his body has Brosnan’s does. Shit wouldn’t fit in the gondola!
Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different...
Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)
If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different model of bike at that point? Won’t the S with 27.5r and 29f ride totally different than the XL with 29r and 32f even if it’s same frame/travel?
I’ve played around with mullet and full 29 on multiple bikes and also overstroking/Cascade link to change rear travel and of those 2 I’d have to say changing the rear wheel size had a bigger noticeable effect on the overall riding experience.
The pursuit of proportionality is completely arbitrary. Imagine if Minnaar’s bike shared all the same proportions to his body has Brosnan’s does. Shit wouldn’t fit in...
The pursuit of proportionality is completely arbitrary. Imagine if Minnaar’s bike shared all the same proportions to his body has Brosnan’s does. Shit wouldn’t fit in the gondola!
I think I've got an inch or two on Minnar and my XL Madonna is already longer than most people's dh bikes. Gondola's are getting close to being a challenge and travel bike bags are. My wheels drag on the ground after I've loaded my bike on a lift. Lol
They've shown these off at least a year ago. Plus the idea is not completely novel even for Outlier...
Plus plus, if I understand correctly Outlier's goal was to lower the rider CoG. There are other reasons why you would want your pedal surface to be below the pedal axle. Besides copying an out there product to fill up your product line and fill your CNC machines (as per Lewis). Case in point, they didn't even iterate on the bearing-axle layout much.
Yeah this almost deserves it's own thread, Mert is one of THE greats and made a huge contribution to the mountain bike world that most people probably don't realise these days. On Any Sunday still holds up as one of the greatest sports movies ever, and the opening shot of Mert walking down the street with a suit then smash cuts to onboard footage of his flattrack racer is brilliant.
I’m a skeptic too. I can’t intuit a 6-bar instant center off the top of my head, but even just looking at how the upper rocker...
I’m a skeptic too. I can’t intuit a 6-bar instant center off the top of my head, but even just looking at how the upper rocker link will move there would have to be something seriously dramatic going on with the lower links to get 30mm out of the flex stay.
I did some napkin math to see what things look like. Assumptions are: The linkage allows the rear axle to move roughly in the same plane as...
I did some napkin math to see what things look like. Assumptions are:
The linkage allows the rear axle to move roughly in the same plane as the seat tube
170mm travel in that plane
Effective seat tube = 77.5 degrees, so assume actual seat tube = 75 degrees
You end up with, sin (15 degrees)*170mm, which results in 4.4cm rearward movement. So if my shitty math gets to 4.4cm, I find it reasonable that the frame has 3cm rearward movement
Yes, I agree with your math.What I'm saying is that 30mm of rearward movement at the sag point seems like way too much. For instance, if...
Yes, I agree with your math.
What I'm saying is that 30mm of rearward movement at the sag point seems like way too much. For instance, if there was 44mm of total rearward movement (which is a ton for any 170mm bike), and for simplicity sake the axle path was a straight line sloping back, that would still only be 13.2mm of rearward movement (aka chainstay growth) at the sag point.
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0
30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that bottom link in order to push the rear back that much that early in the path.
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0 30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that...
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0
30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that bottom link in order to push the rear back that much that early in the path.
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.
On the other hand, I can't think of a reason why a rider would want soooooo much rearward axle movement in the first 30% of travel. I imagine it would make pumping and cornering feel really weird. Remember how people said the Trust fork didn't absorb vertical "slap down" forces, and hurt their wrists? A lot of that was because the axle moved back a lot in the first portion of travel instead of mostly moving up like a telescopic fork. I'm imagining a similar effect in a rear suspension, where it would react very differently to forces from the ground vs. forces from body movements.
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0 30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that...
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0
30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that bottom link in order to push the rear back that much that early in the path.
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.On the other hand, I can't think of...
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.
On the other hand, I can't think of a reason why a rider would want soooooo much rearward axle movement in the first 30% of travel. I imagine it would make pumping and cornering feel really weird. Remember how people said the Trust fork didn't absorb vertical "slap down" forces, and hurt their wrists? A lot of that was because the axle moved back a lot in the first portion of travel instead of mostly moving up like a telescopic fork. I'm imagining a similar effect in a rear suspension, where it would react very differently to forces from the ground vs. forces from body movements.
The telepathy bike has about 30mm of rearward movement at sag. It's designed with an axle path meant to mimic the fork's axle path and maintain a constant wheelbase. Haven't ridden it, so can't say if they're onto something there.
I had a 1st gen Canfield Jedi. I think that thing had around 25mm rearward movement at sag. It cornered weird and jumped weird, but I eventually got used to it. I don't think the benefits outweighed the downsides though.
There's no way that RMU bike has 30mm rearward travel at sag though. I think that's just some random marketing guy who manages their IG account spouting off tech specs that he doesn't know anything about.
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so this seems reasonable compared to that...
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so...
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so this seems reasonable compared to that...
Ahhh, the good old Lenz Sport days of early 29ers….
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so...
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so this seems reasonable compared to that...
can confirm, it's uncomfortably close. But worked fine as long as it was dry.
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.On the other hand, I can't think of...
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.
On the other hand, I can't think of a reason why a rider would want soooooo much rearward axle movement in the first 30% of travel. I imagine it would make pumping and cornering feel really weird. Remember how people said the Trust fork didn't absorb vertical "slap down" forces, and hurt their wrists? A lot of that was because the axle moved back a lot in the first portion of travel instead of mostly moving up like a telescopic fork. I'm imagining a similar effect in a rear suspension, where it would react very differently to forces from the ground vs. forces from body movements.
It was an issue on the Trust because if you came down rear wheel heavy at all the initial axle path of the fork would be almost perpendicular to the ground. The effect would be amplified due to the moment arm of the wheelbase slapping the front wheel down.
You could come down rear wheel heavy and potentially notice some extra feedback but you would never get the slapping effect from the front wheel. It should be a non-issue unless you’re hitting Bender drops with Bender technique in the big 26
It was an issue on the Trust because if you came down rear wheel heavy at all the initial axle path of the fork would be...
It was an issue on the Trust because if you came down rear wheel heavy at all the initial axle path of the fork would be almost perpendicular to the ground. The effect would be amplified due to the moment arm of the wheelbase slapping the front wheel down.
You could come down rear wheel heavy and potentially notice some extra feedback but you would never get the slapping effect from the front wheel. It should be a non-issue unless you’re hitting Bender drops with Bender technique in the big 26
One of the guys that got us here:
RIP Mert Lawwill 09/25/1940-05/06/2026
Mert Lawwill the mountain biker.
Re: Size specific wheel sizes (relevant to current Megatower vs Nomad chatter)
If every size is on a different wheel size aren’t those pretty much a different model of bike at that point? Won’t the S with 27.5r and 29f ride totally different than the XL with 29r and 32f even if it’s same frame/travel?
I’ve played around with mullet and full 29 on multiple bikes and also overstroking/Cascade link to change rear travel and of those 2 I’d have to say changing the rear wheel size had a bigger noticeable effect on the overall riding experience.
This is going to grind some gears... taken from Lewis IG Story.
But, but, they fill the hole in the middle...is totally not the same thing!
The pursuit of proportionality is completely arbitrary. Imagine if Minnaar’s bike shared all the same proportions to his body has Brosnan’s does. Shit wouldn’t fit in the gondola!
I think I've got an inch or two on Minnar and my XL Madonna is already longer than most people's dh bikes. Gondola's are getting close to being a challenge and travel bike bags are. My wheels drag on the ground after I've loaded my bike on a lift. Lol
They've shown these off at least a year ago. Plus the idea is not completely novel even for Outlier...
Plus plus, if I understand correctly Outlier's goal was to lower the rider CoG. There are other reasons why you would want your pedal surface to be below the pedal axle. Besides copying an out there product to fill up your product line and fill your CNC machines (as per Lewis). Case in point, they didn't even iterate on the bearing-axle layout much.
I am pretty sure I saw a whited out one the other day. I did not take a spy shot but trust me bro
It's being discontinued.
Speaking of the Megatower, anyone has an LT link for the V1 from Cascade in a drawer, collecting dust? 😉
Every santa cruz VPP bike is already 4 bar
ugh, not this again.
That guy will give you the cad if you know a machinist.
i rode my v1 Hightower this past week. Really fun bike. Gave jt to my sister but she doesn’t currently have a garage so I gave it a spin.
neko doing laps at mtn creek with a 32" front wheel and cialis-sized FOX 40. pic by luca cometti the sniper.
Yeah this almost deserves it's own thread, Mert is one of THE greats and made a huge contribution to the mountain bike world that most people probably don't realise these days. On Any Sunday still holds up as one of the greatest sports movies ever, and the opening shot of Mert walking down the street with a suit then smash cuts to onboard footage of his flattrack racer is brilliant.
RIP
I might. Hit me up in DM's.
did they sleeve extended dropouts over a standard 40 casting? thats... adventurous.
Ahh, this is valid and I completely missed it :0
30% sag is 50mm travel, so yeah there must be a good amount of rotation on that bottom link in order to push the rear back that much that early in the path.
If it’s faster: it’s faster.
On the one hand, I really doubt the math on that number, and feel like it can't be right.
On the other hand, I can't think of a reason why a rider would want soooooo much rearward axle movement in the first 30% of travel. I imagine it would make pumping and cornering feel really weird. Remember how people said the Trust fork didn't absorb vertical "slap down" forces, and hurt their wrists? A lot of that was because the axle moved back a lot in the first portion of travel instead of mostly moving up like a telescopic fork. I'm imagining a similar effect in a rear suspension, where it would react very differently to forces from the ground vs. forces from body movements.
I assume it's bonded with glue, too, right? Wild.
Actually looks pretty cleanly done.
At least he got that loctite sponsorship.
The telepathy bike has about 30mm of rearward movement at sag. It's designed with an axle path meant to mimic the fork's axle path and maintain a constant wheelbase. Haven't ridden it, so can't say if they're onto something there.
I had a 1st gen Canfield Jedi. I think that thing had around 25mm rearward movement at sag. It cornered weird and jumped weird, but I eventually got used to it. I don't think the benefits outweighed the downsides though.
There's no way that RMU bike has 30mm rearward travel at sag though. I think that's just some random marketing guy who manages their IG account spouting off tech specs that he doesn't know anything about.
IIRC he relieved (i.e. dremeled out) the arch of a 27.5" fork to cram a 29er in there and then raced it at Fort William so this seems reasonable compared to that...
Ahhh, the good old Lenz Sport days of early 29ers….
can confirm, it's uncomfortably close. But worked fine as long as it was dry.
It was an issue on the Trust because if you came down rear wheel heavy at all the initial axle path of the fork would be almost perpendicular to the ground. The effect would be amplified due to the moment arm of the wheelbase slapping the front wheel down.
You could come down rear wheel heavy and potentially notice some extra feedback but you would never get the slapping effect from the front wheel. It should be a non-issue unless you’re hitting Bender drops with Bender technique in the big 26
You don't know me. Maybe that's how I roll.
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker