I suppose the weight limit is just one more argument for them to refuse warranty claims rather than a strict limit, the bike is not going...
I suppose the weight limit is just one more argument for them to refuse warranty claims rather than a strict limit, the bike is not going to desintegrate under someone 120kg.
There is no mention of the adjustable BB in the geo chart, I can’t understand how companies can be so bad a communicatif basic info about their bikes
It’s quite possibly related to whatever testing they’ve done and their insurance.
Given the system ratings (as per @Goupil) of 120 or 115 kg for the trail bikes it looks like a design choice. If those were all over the place, yeah, that's what they passed in testing and lowered the limit. Considering ALL the bikes have a less than default system rating of 125 kg, it's clear they chose to design the bikes on the lighter side.
I guess it just pays off to handle the small percentage of warranty claims from heavier riders or to even deny them because they are too heavy.
It's a pain to have to design a bike for everyone from 50 kg to 120 kg, but that's where we are...
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that gets me... So how much of a G out for an 85kg rider's effective weight to be putting over 100kg of force into the frame? The wording asks more questions than it answers.
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that...
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that gets me... So how much of a G out for an 85kg rider's effective weight to be putting over 100kg of force into the frame? The wording asks more questions than it answers.
mass and force are different. “maximum mass” is actually the exact right wording to nullify your question about g force.
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I...
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I...
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I...
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that...
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that gets me... So how much of a G out for an 85kg rider's effective weight to be putting over 100kg of force into the frame? The wording asks more questions than it answers.
A given mass of the load is assumed and a given behaviour of the system for a given use category is assumed which then, via accelerations of said mass during use, gives you the forces acting upon the frame and thus the design parameters for your construction.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I...
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
Thats what i was thinking. The beauty of function and dependability. I'd swap the stem and bars and go dh casing tires but thats personal preference and ez swaps. Thicc bottom ftw!
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I...
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
I suppose the weight limit is just one more argument for them to refuse warranty claims rather than a strict limit, the bike is not going...
I suppose the weight limit is just one more argument for them to refuse warranty claims rather than a strict limit, the bike is not going to desintegrate under someone 120kg.
There is no mention of the adjustable BB in the geo chart, I can’t understand how companies can be so bad a communicatif basic info about their bikes
Given the system ratings (as per @Goupil) of 120 or 115 kg for the trail bikes it looks like a design choice. If those were...
Given the system ratings (as per @Goupil) of 120 or 115 kg for the trail bikes it looks like a design choice. If those were all over the place, yeah, that's what they passed in testing and lowered the limit. Considering ALL the bikes have a less than default system rating of 125 kg, it's clear they chose to design the bikes on the lighter side.
I guess it just pays off to handle the small percentage of warranty claims from heavier riders or to even deny them because they are too heavy.
It's a pain to have to design a bike for everyone from 50 kg to 120 kg, but that's where we are...
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much a piece of safety equipment as your helmet. Even more frustrating, if your frame snaps it might not even be your fault where a regular crash usually is!
Well it's up to the rider for buying a frame that is not rated to their weight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not protecting them and it's something that would make me hesitate buying a Cube A LOT if I was in the market, but the fact of the matter is that they communicated that fairly well via their site. Better than most other brands I'd say. You have a ton of components that don't even have a category of use attached to them.
It's friday and that sounds like the perfect time to start a fight about wheel sizes again!
Not exactly MTB, but Cube is supposedly dropping a 32" gravel in it's 2027 lineup. Saw this image floating around, first brand to commit to 30.5" ? Would hate to be an inventory manager right now...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent. Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent. Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent. Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much...
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much a piece of safety equipment as your helmet. Even more frustrating, if your frame snaps it might not even be your fault where a regular crash usually is!
Spoiler alert: EVERYTHING breaks. Companies design as best they can within the tolerances their design will accommodate and their margins can afford. Communicating clearly there are limits is proactive, nothing more.
I recall designing custom bikes for big chonky boys (eg 150kg plus) and in addition to specifying a limit we also specified very frequent service inspections, because at that size anything can catastrophically fail. I recall seeing one dude every week for bolt checks etc.
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much...
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much a piece of safety equipment as your helmet. Even more frustrating, if your frame snaps it might not even be your fault where a regular crash usually is!
Most (nearly all) mountain bikes have a maximum weight (mass) limit. They just bury it in the manual and don’t advertise it.
I know the previous generation Demo frame had a limit in its manual also.
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent. Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
Is imminent next week? I've come close to pulling the trigger on a new frame a few times over the last couple of weeks. I've partially been hesitant because I had a feeling Yeti would release their new mid travel bike the day after I bought a frame.
Is imminent next week? I've come close to pulling the trigger on a new frame a few times over the last couple of weeks. I've partially...
Is imminent next week? I've come close to pulling the trigger on a new frame a few times over the last couple of weeks. I've partially been hesitant because I had a feeling Yeti would release their new mid travel bike the day after I bought a frame.
I've felt the same way and ultimately settled on a waiting the Yeti out.
Most (nearly all) mountain bikes have a maximum weight (mass) limit. They just bury it in the manual and don’t advertise it.I know the previous generation...
Most (nearly all) mountain bikes have a maximum weight (mass) limit. They just bury it in the manual and don’t advertise it.
I know the previous generation Demo frame had a limit in its manual also.
Often times components can dictate the max system weight for an entire bike:
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent. Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has...
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
below is the amflow PR. you posted the PX which is $10k and has a 700wh batttery. PR and new konas are similarly priced, both with 800wh batteries. kona is alloy/bosch/mech drivetrain, PR is carbon/avinox/s1000 drivetrain. the PR is a 53 pound thicky (it's in my garage right now).
A team replicer must be an Australia-only product.
Norco close to releasing dh bike
Given the system ratings (as per @Goupil) of 120 or 115 kg for the trail bikes it looks like a design choice. If those were all over the place, yeah, that's what they passed in testing and lowered the limit. Considering ALL the bikes have a less than default system rating of 125 kg, it's clear they chose to design the bikes on the lighter side.
I guess it just pays off to handle the small percentage of warranty claims from heavier riders or to even deny them because they are too heavy.
It's a pain to have to design a bike for everyone from 50 kg to 120 kg, but that's where we are...
It may well have been just the auto translation, but the wording "Maximum permissible mass, must not be exceeded under any circumstances" is the bit that gets me... So how much of a G out for an 85kg rider's effective weight to be putting over 100kg of force into the frame?
The wording asks more questions than it answers.
Nah, not really. Driver weight is pretty unambiguous context.
mass and force are different. “maximum mass” is actually the exact right wording to nullify your question about g force.
Troy Brosnan signature edition
The discourse about the new Kona ebikes on Pinkbike is baffling to me. Clearly I'm out of touch, but I don't think it looks ugly, I think the geo is good, the Bosch motors are proven well supported and one of the best on the market, what's the problem?
Go to the Amflow website and get back to us
Big girls don't get any love I guess
It looks remarkably similar in size to the Amflow PR
New Demo and Aurum-like? A moment of silence for all the fallen soldiers that never got to see the day...
A given mass of the load is assumed and a given behaviour of the system for a given use category is assumed which then, via accelerations of said mass during use, gives you the forces acting upon the frame and thus the design parameters for your construction.
Medium-travel Yeti incoming. Release iminent.
Long-chainstay fans rejoice: Size L has a 450mm rear center. Geometry is very middle-of-the-road otherwise, in a good way. Size L has 480mm reach. Stack could be a little taller, I guess (- 635mm for Size L).
Thats what i was thinking. The beauty of function and dependability. I'd swap the stem and bars and go dh casing tires but thats personal preference and ez swaps. Thicc bottom ftw!
If their plan is to be ok with frames breaking that’s a huge safety issue that’s unforgivable in my view. Your bike is just as much a piece of safety equipment as your helmet. Even more frustrating, if your frame snaps it might not even be your fault where a regular crash usually is!
Well it's up to the rider for buying a frame that is not rated to their weight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not protecting them and it's something that would make me hesitate buying a Cube A LOT if I was in the market, but the fact of the matter is that they communicated that fairly well via their site. Better than most other brands I'd say. You have a ton of components that don't even have a category of use attached to them.
It's friday and that sounds like the perfect time to start a fight about wheel sizes again!
Not exactly MTB, but Cube is supposedly dropping a 32" gravel in it's 2027 lineup. Saw this image floating around, first brand to commit to 30.5" ? Would hate to be an inventory manager right now...
Also 13 speed Shimano GRX.
Rear travel along the lines of a SJ15/Fuel EX?
I've gotta imagine this is gonna be a 140mm travel frame with a 160mm fork on it.
That'd track with their SB130/140 history. Maybe standard140/150 and 140/160 Lunch Ride builds.
Spoiler alert: EVERYTHING breaks. Companies design as best they can within the tolerances their design will accommodate and their margins can afford. Communicating clearly there are limits is proactive, nothing more.
I recall designing custom bikes for big chonky boys (eg 150kg plus) and in addition to specifying a limit we also specified very frequent service inspections, because at that size anything can catastrophically fail. I recall seeing one dude every week for bolt checks etc.
Most (nearly all) mountain bikes have a maximum weight (mass) limit. They just bury it in the manual and don’t advertise it.
I know the previous generation Demo frame had a limit in its manual also.
Is imminent next week? I've come close to pulling the trigger on a new frame a few times over the last couple of weeks. I've partially been hesitant because I had a feeling Yeti would release their new mid travel bike the day after I bought a frame.
I've felt the same way and ultimately settled on a waiting the Yeti out.
Often times components can dictate the max system weight for an entire bike:
Could be 145mm rear with a 160mm fork like the MTe too? The LT and LTe are both 160mm rear with 170mm forks.
below is the amflow PR. you posted the PX which is $10k and has a 700wh batttery. PR and new konas are similarly priced, both with 800wh batteries. kona is alloy/bosch/mech drivetrain, PR is carbon/avinox/s1000 drivetrain. the PR is a 53 pound thicky (it's in my garage right now).
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker