The nighttain has a 20T for the larger of the jackshaft rings, not sure about the smaller, and a 27T chainring. A chain link rotates 11.25...
The nighttain has a 20T for the larger of the jackshaft rings, not sure about the smaller, and a 27T chainring. A chain link rotates 11.25 degrees (22.5 total) going onto and off a 16T idler and 9 degrees going onto a 20T ring. Add in the fact that there are two rings on the jackshaft and that's at least 18 degrees total. A little more because one of the rings is smaller by the looks of it. Then the smaller chainring is a little less efficient than a 32T. Maybe if you compare it to a bike that uses an idler on the slack side of the chain the claim could work out, but with no idler on the slack side it looks like a wash at best.
Edit: I just laid it out and it appears the jackshaft configuration has the edge by about 1 degree, which I would not consider appreciable considering no one talks about drivetrain losses going to a smaller chainring up front.
I just checked the RMU I have on hand for testing and the smaller Jackshaft pulley is a 17. I imagine the difference in your calculations...
I just checked the RMU I have on hand for testing and the smaller Jackshaft pulley is a 17. I imagine the difference in your calculations is pretty marginal
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something similar. Where in the world will you get a new 27T chainring? And it can't be narrow wide as well.
I was fully expecting they went with a layout that gave them a standard 32ish output ring, that's where my back of the mind calculation came from.
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something...
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something similar. Where in the world will you get a new 27T chainring? And it can't be narrow wide as well.
I was fully expecting they went with a layout that gave them a standard 32ish output ring, that's where my back of the mind calculation came from.
What's the layout on the Phoenix?
To be fair there’s no need for a narrow wide between the chainring and jackshaft pulley since is perfectly in line and the chainline will never change
The nighttain has a 20T for the larger of the jackshaft rings, not sure about the smaller, and a 27T chainring. A chain link rotates 11.25...
The nighttain has a 20T for the larger of the jackshaft rings, not sure about the smaller, and a 27T chainring. A chain link rotates 11.25 degrees (22.5 total) going onto and off a 16T idler and 9 degrees going onto a 20T ring. Add in the fact that there are two rings on the jackshaft and that's at least 18 degrees total. A little more because one of the rings is smaller by the looks of it. Then the smaller chainring is a little less efficient than a 32T. Maybe if you compare it to a bike that uses an idler on the slack side of the chain the claim could work out, but with no idler on the slack side it looks like a wash at best.
Edit: I just laid it out and it appears the jackshaft configuration has the edge by about 1 degree, which I would not consider appreciable considering no one talks about drivetrain losses going to a smaller chainring up front.
I just checked the RMU I have on hand for testing and the smaller Jackshaft pulley is a 17. I imagine the difference in your calculations...
I just checked the RMU I have on hand for testing and the smaller Jackshaft pulley is a 17. I imagine the difference in your calculations is pretty marginal
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something...
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something similar. Where in the world will you get a new 27T chainring? And it can't be narrow wide as well.
I was fully expecting they went with a layout that gave them a standard 32ish output ring, that's where my back of the mind calculation came from.
This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only get from the company that sold you the bike, you're also stuck with what is essentially a 35T chainring. Fine on a DH bike I guess, but on an enduro bike that's supposed to get pedalled? Who is going to live with that??
True that Dave Weagle was the first to (successfully at the end of the day) implement this idea, but him patenting it essentially just cockblocked everyone else at trying to make a GOOD implementation. Because this is anything but good.
Yeah I went and checked and see it's the same.This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only...
Yeah I went and checked and see it's the same.
This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only get from the company that sold you the bike, you're also stuck with what is essentially a 35T chainring. Fine on a DH bike I guess, but on an enduro bike that's supposed to get pedalled? Who is going to live with that??
True that Dave Weagle was the first to (successfully at the end of the day) implement this idea, but him patenting it essentially just cockblocked everyone else at trying to make a GOOD implementation. Because this is anything but good.
The pivot uses a 17/22 vs the RMU’s 17/20. that should work out to about a 32 tooth on the Nighttrain
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their...
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s the first 32”) but surely to goodness, they get the geometry fairly dialed, and not repeat the geometry challenges we had with the first 29ers. Time will tell.
The source is allegedly a European retailer who accidentally pushed a website update earlier than they were supposed to. Tale as old as time for this thread.
Anyone ever flat from spokes poking through the rim tape? Recently happened to me- DT Swiss FR560 32H- smashed very hard on something- got 2x holes...
Anyone ever flat from spokes poking through the rim tape? Recently happened to me- DT Swiss FR560 32H- smashed very hard on something- got 2x holes from spokes poking up through the rim tape. DH tire and cushcore.
I'm guessing the ghetto tubeless tube would have saved me but installation with a cushcore would be impossible.
Pretty common issue AFAIK, from both being a mechanic back in the day to riding lots and testing new product all the time. WTB resolves this...
Pretty common issue AFAIK, from both being a mechanic back in the day to riding lots and testing new product all the time. WTB resolves this issue with a designed-in rim liner that sits perfectly in a channel. Tubeless tape goes over this. At home, I use either gorilla tape or my personal preference, the old school 8934 filament tape (not the cloth variety) that's been used on wheels since time immemorial.
Thank you for alerting me to this product. Yes I've also had spokes break and poke through my rim tape, and with Cushcore installed the trailside...
Thank you for alerting me to this product. Yes I've also had spokes break and poke through my rim tape, and with Cushcore installed the trailside fix process is absolutely maddening. Will be buying this $5 insurance policy for all of my tubeless wheels for the rest of forever.
Also thanks to wtb for not charging 25 bucks for a lasso with a hole in it. I am also gonna give em a go next tire change.
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their...
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s...
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s the first 32”) but surely to goodness, they get the geometry fairly dialed, and not repeat the geometry challenges we had with the first 29ers. Time will tell.
Plus the hardtail is going to get a bit steeper once the fork sags, unlike a FS bike where the sag is relatively consistent front and rear.
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s...
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s the first 32”) but surely to goodness, they get the geometry fairly dialed, and not repeat the geometry challenges we had with the first 29ers. Time will tell.
That's one thing I've wondered about... Will the 32in development curve look like the 29 or will we get to a sweet spot quicker? I think a lot of time was spent trying to make 29ers ride like a 26 as opposed to playing into the strengths of the 29.. 27.5 lurking in the background probably didn't help much...
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very...
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their...
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s...
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s the first 32”) but surely to goodness, they get the geometry fairly dialed, and not repeat the geometry challenges we had with the first 29ers. Time will tell.
Especially Trek was quite behind with seatangles in bigger sizes.
look at the XL sizes of the old Gen Slash for example
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very...
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
Yeah I went and checked and see it's the same.This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only...
Yeah I went and checked and see it's the same.
This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only get from the company that sold you the bike, you're also stuck with what is essentially a 35T chainring. Fine on a DH bike I guess, but on an enduro bike that's supposed to get pedalled? Who is going to live with that??
True that Dave Weagle was the first to (successfully at the end of the day) implement this idea, but him patenting it essentially just cockblocked everyone else at trying to make a GOOD implementation. Because this is anything but good.
The patent was never actually granted. It was issued a non-final rejection based on being an obvious combination of prior art. If you don't respond to that within a certain window the patent office considers it abandoned. So anyone that wants can have at it.
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very...
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very...
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their...
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
Seeing these Trek abominations its funny how it goes exactly in the opposite direction of what we see with high rise bars and reverse stem combo in gravity. Once these realities will meet in the near future we will end up somewhere in the middle with straight 50mm stems… oh wait.
They're renders. Valve stems not usually the highest priority.
Probably not renders, but quickly photo shopped images. Treks done that for years so they can show all the configurations quickly and update them if there is a spec change.
Brendog for the Down, Nino for the Country. makes sense to me.
From what I know, it's going to be like 140mm travel. What I don't know is if it's a flex pivot or a Horst link. If it's a Horst link they should call it the new genius because that what it'll be.
Huh, interesting choice of rings. I would hope they would go for something more standard, for example for the final output ring a 32 or something similar. Where in the world will you get a new 27T chainring? And it can't be narrow wide as well.
I was fully expecting they went with a layout that gave them a standard 32ish output ring, that's where my back of the mind calculation came from.
What's the layout on the Phoenix?
To be fair there’s no need for a narrow wide between the chainring and jackshaft pulley since is perfectly in line and the chainline will never change
Also a 27…
https://www.pivotcycles.com/en-us/products/phoenix-idler-assembly?Idler+Assembly=17T%2F22T
https://www.pivotcycles.com/en-us/products/phoenix-chainring?Chainring=27t
Yeah I went and checked and see it's the same.
This is terrible. Not only are you stuck with a bunch of non-standard parts you can only get from the company that sold you the bike, you're also stuck with what is essentially a 35T chainring. Fine on a DH bike I guess, but on an enduro bike that's supposed to get pedalled? Who is going to live with that??
True that Dave Weagle was the first to (successfully at the end of the day) implement this idea, but him patenting it essentially just cockblocked everyone else at trying to make a GOOD implementation. Because this is anything but good.
The pivot uses a 17/22 vs the RMU’s 17/20. that should work out to about a 32 tooth on the Nighttrain
Details, of course.
Time for me to eat another hat then?
It seems not only 32" bikes are coming (leaked Trek models in this case) but also new 32" forks from Fox and RockShox will appear very soon. (Please don't take the following pics too seriously, no confirmation, no source I've found. There's a chance these are fake ones.)
Source: https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=179309&start=60
Oh god. That one dude who was clutching his pearls a few pages ago about the rumored 32” trek is gonna blow a gasket when he sees those pictures.
Ugly af those treks as I mentioned
especially that blue hardtail... super slack effective seat angle.
I don't have the visual cues to work out what size those bikes are, but taller people (their intended market) are going to struggle on that arent they?
I would assume that they take that in consideration. Think about Trek what you will, but it’s also not their first bike they making (ok, it’s the first 32”) but surely to goodness, they get the geometry fairly dialed, and not repeat the geometry challenges we had with the first 29ers. Time will tell.
The source is allegedly a European retailer who accidentally pushed a website update earlier than they were supposed to. Tale as old as time for this thread.
Also thanks to wtb for not charging 25 bucks for a lasso with a hole in it. I am also gonna give em a go next tire change.
Plus the hardtail is going to get a bit steeper once the fork sags, unlike a FS bike where the sag is relatively consistent front and rear.
That's one thing I've wondered about... Will the 32in development curve look like the 29 or will we get to a sweet spot quicker? I think a lot of time was spent trying to make 29ers ride like a 26 as opposed to playing into the strengths of the 29.. 27.5 lurking in the background probably didn't help much...
No valve stems...?
Especially Trek was quite behind with seatangles in bigger sizes.
look at the XL sizes of the old Gen Slash for example
Brendog and schurter teasing with a Spark DC.
If they move those bars any lower, we're gonna have to start worrying about bar <-> tire clearance at full compression
The patent was never actually granted. It was issued a non-final rejection based on being an obvious combination of prior art. If you don't respond to that within a certain window the patent office considers it abandoned. So anyone that wants can have at it.
Imagine crushing your fingers between your headtube and fork crown in a blow-your-hands-off otb moment.
They're renders. Valve stems not usually the highest priority.
No, I think no valve stems is a new Trek innovation. Y'all just don't want to give them credit for it.
Holy seat tube angle, Batman.
Actually just ball needle valves, all about being lightweight.
Brendog for the Down, Nino for the Country. makes sense to me.
Seeing these Trek abominations its funny how it goes exactly in the opposite direction of what we see with high rise bars and reverse stem combo in gravity. Once these realities will meet in the near future we will end up somewhere in the middle with straight 50mm stems… oh wait.
Probably not renders, but quickly photo shopped images. Treks done that for years so they can show all the configurations quickly and update them if there is a spec change.
From what I know, it's going to be like 140mm travel. What I don't know is if it's a flex pivot or a Horst link. If it's a Horst link they should call it the new genius because that what it'll be.
Not quite a review of the DHX, but Remy riding with Jackson and others on the new tire at Whistler in the wet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E5E33Eo_CQ
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker