New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
Tempo V1 - Still in stock in Aus
Me. I’m the one who will probably buy one.
I am not a more travel is better guy. I’ve run hardcore hardtails for many years as my ‘trail’ bike mostly because I couldn’t find a 120mm frame I felt like I could hammer.
This is Cat 5 rated. And comes with a Lyric. Sign me up!
Wasn’t Giant Maestro ruled ok because the dw-link patent didn’t include the option for the lower shock bolt to be at the location of the lower...
Wasn’t Giant Maestro ruled ok because the dw-link patent didn’t include the option for the lower shock bolt to be at the location of the lower link’s front mount?
Somehow I always liked the feel of my old 2017 Giant Reign SX on the brakes far better than my old Ibis Ripmo AF. Didn’t hang up as much climbing either. Probably the bike I should’ve kept over the years.
Pretty sure that case went back to the original maestro bikes in 2005 that didn't have a shared lower link/shock mount. Probably why they changed it later!
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
Tempo V1 - Still in stock in Aus
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
I get what youre putting forward but to Commencals reasoning, they sell bikes to those that maybe used to ride YT’s. The people that look at the plenty capable 34 of their bike and think “Ill take a lyrik or stubby 36 and then throw this thing on my lifted Ford Raptor and hit some green and blue lines”. Just because its thicker and bigger. The minority of their market is looking for the 34. Not making this sound like a dickish thing to say, but look at Scotts. I mean theyre pretty sick now days. They will do what you want.
On this general train of thought, one thing I always thought could be genuinely beneficial to the consumer is size specific build kits, particularly on a bike like this. Put a 34 and exo tyres on the smaller sizes, with a 36 and exo+ tyres on the larger sizes. You could do similar things for rotors, bar width etc. More part numbers for the product managers but hey, we can dream.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
I get what youre putting forward but to Commencals reasoning, they sell bikes to those that maybe used to ride YT’s. The people that look at...
I get what youre putting forward but to Commencals reasoning, they sell bikes to those that maybe used to ride YT’s. The people that look at the plenty capable 34 of their bike and think “Ill take a lyrik or stubby 36 and then throw this thing on my lifted Ford Raptor and hit some green and blue lines”. Just because its thicker and bigger. The minority of their market is looking for the 34. Not making this sound like a dickish thing to say, but look at Scotts. I mean theyre pretty sick now days. They will do what you want.
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short travel bike that you hammer like an enduro bike, same as the Forbidden Druid (which also comes with a Lyrik/36). Nobody is buying a Tempo to count grams or ride blue trails. The 36 is the right fork for the bike’s intentions. I’d personally also spec gravity tires on it.
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
The newest gen Lyrik is such a miss being the same weight as a previous gen Zeb. At some point does RS just drop it from the lineup? It’s great to have something in between the Zeb and Pike, but is it really fulfilling that role?
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
I'd be interested to hear from those who've ridden both the previous Lyrik and now the new LinearXL one that's the weight of the Zeb. I threw my Zeb on my 5010 just for fun and it felt a little out of place but that could have been due to thee stiffness of the bigger stanchions and not the weight.
Love that Commencal is keeping the "short travel all mountain" (5010, Druid, Optic, Spectral 125, etc.) genre alive amidst pretty steady downcountry hype. (been a thing since what? 2018?)
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
I'd be interested to hear from those who've ridden both the previous Lyrik and now the new LinearXL one that's the weight of the Zeb. I...
I'd be interested to hear from those who've ridden both the previous Lyrik and now the new LinearXL one that's the weight of the Zeb. I threw my Zeb on my 5010 just for fun and it felt a little out of place but that could have been due to thee stiffness of the bigger stanchions and not the weight.
Love that Commencal is keeping the "short travel all mountain" (5010, Druid, Optic, Spectral 125, etc.) genre alive amidst pretty steady downcountry hype. (been a thing since what? 2018?)
I've got both the new Zeb and Lyrik, and ran the previous versions of both. Old Zeb I had to run an MRP Noken to use most of my travel as opposed to only 2/3, at pressures that were reasonable for the first half of travel. Old Lyrik I had no such issues, but it was noticeably more flexy fore/aft and torsionally than old Zeb. Both new forks are a lot more linear and I'm able to use full travel on big landings at baseline pressures (then add ABO to give some reserve). New Lyrik is more linear than new Zeb, and more than the old Lyrik, and I think it gives up a bit of midstroke support because of this. Both are now tube in tube, use the same air shaft but the sealhead and inner tube are different diameters. The amount of natural ramp on the new Zeb feels perfect to me. New Lyrik is a bit stiffer than the old version, and didn't feel that outgunned when I put it on an ebike for a bit. Less precise, sure, but kinda like running alu rims vs. carbon. The old one felt like it clearly had no place on a 46+ lb ebike, and let you know it... its limit felt like about 42 lb. I ran the new Lyrik at 170mm on my enduro bike for a bit before going to a Zeb on it, and it works and gives it a lively nature but I decided I was willing to pay the Zeb weight tax for the extra stiffness and associated confidence landing jumps into brake bumps, or diving into rutted out berms.
I do think that both Lyrik and Zeb essentially moved up half a bracket in terms of capacity. I think there's a good argument to do a slight update to the Pike but keep it as single tube and bump the max travel up to 160, basically filling in for the old Lyrik.
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is...
Tempo V2
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
This is a slight derail but I agree. My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify...
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
Curious if you've ridden it? It's really, really good. Although yeah, maybe an odd choice for that bike--but I bet that thing is a heavy hitter and absolutely rips.
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like the 36SL is the objectively optimal fork for the Tempo. Is the Pike really too flexy to hammer?
Anyway, now here's my maybe even hotter take: Sure, the commencal might be Cat 5, but I don't think bike companies can justify a short travel bike breaking or being less durable because people might ride it too hard. You can't make a bike with enduro-like geometry and then when people ride it fast on hard trails and it breaks go "noooo it wasn't meant for that!!!!" If it's not a true XC race bike, it needs to be able to hold up. Full stop, no matter what rating category you test it to. I don't care how light you make it. If it doesn't stand up, you're a shit company making shit bikes. Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden.
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short...
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short travel bike that you hammer like an enduro bike, same as the Forbidden Druid (which also comes with a Lyrik/36). Nobody is buying a Tempo to count grams or ride blue trails. The 36 is the right fork for the bike’s intentions. I’d personally also spec gravity tires on it.
This is just my stupid opinion but I don’t think I’m missing the point.
The “previous” aka the same tempo with dumber routing was super hyped up for being a super efficient bike that also happened to be sort of smashy. All they did was change the marketing language to convince you a bike you should hammer like an enduro bike lol.
Some bikes ride better than others for a certain travel bracket. But a 125mm bike will never be a 150mm + bike.
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short...
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short travel bike that you hammer like an enduro bike, same as the Forbidden Druid (which also comes with a Lyrik/36). Nobody is buying a Tempo to count grams or ride blue trails. The 36 is the right fork for the bike’s intentions. I’d personally also spec gravity tires on it.
This is just my stupid opinion but I don’t think I’m missing the point. The “previous” aka the same tempo with dumber routing was super hyped up...
This is just my stupid opinion but I don’t think I’m missing the point.
The “previous” aka the same tempo with dumber routing was super hyped up for being a super efficient bike that also happened to be sort of smashy. All they did was change the marketing language to convince you a bike you should hammer like an enduro bike lol.
Some bikes ride better than others for a certain travel bracket. But a 125mm bike will never be a 150mm + bike.
Yes, but some people can ride a 120mm bike better/harder than most can ride a 160mm bike and they may enjoy that. Those people deserve a bike too. Not everyone wants to be overbiked all the time.
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like...
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like the 36SL is the objectively optimal fork for the Tempo. Is the Pike really too flexy to hammer?
Anyway, now here's my maybe even hotter take: Sure, the commencal might be Cat 5, but I don't think bike companies can justify a short travel bike breaking or being less durable because people might ride it too hard. You can't make a bike with enduro-like geometry and then when people ride it fast on hard trails and it breaks go "noooo it wasn't meant for that!!!!" If it's not a true XC race bike, it needs to be able to hold up. Full stop, no matter what rating category you test it to. I don't care how light you make it. If it doesn't stand up, you're a shit company making shit bikes. Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden.
I have a 22 pike at 150mm on my v1 tempo and it seems like the perfect fork for the bike. its 31lbs with a waterbottle and a tool. I've hit some pretty big jumps and drops on it and i weight 190-200. I don't think I need a beefier fork. 36sl seems like a good fit but Rockshox needs to have a lighter 150 fork offering.
I also agree the older build kits fit the bike a little more.
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like...
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like the 36SL is the objectively optimal fork for the Tempo. Is the Pike really too flexy to hammer?
Anyway, now here's my maybe even hotter take: Sure, the commencal might be Cat 5, but I don't think bike companies can justify a short travel bike breaking or being less durable because people might ride it too hard. You can't make a bike with enduro-like geometry and then when people ride it fast on hard trails and it breaks go "noooo it wasn't meant for that!!!!" If it's not a true XC race bike, it needs to be able to hold up. Full stop, no matter what rating category you test it to. I don't care how light you make it. If it doesn't stand up, you're a shit company making shit bikes. Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden.
Reasonably certain it was a case of the Pike being an older chassis over the Lyrik. Nothing to do with performance, just timelines.
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
Would be cool if you could compare 2 bikes at once to try to get them to fit similar. also would be nice if you could add reach, hta adjustments, or wheelsize. but would rather use this than AI to figure this math out for me.
Pretty cool graphics on the Bikeyoke version, and great that they include bar "reach" as well. It is often left out and can make a big difference in fit.
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in corners due to their ape hanger setups.
I’m curious if someone like Dak could use this to analyze his fit, then have someone do a bit of crude statics to calculate traction or forces on the body with different fit setups. If I remember correctly there’s a function in Linkage where you can define the center of gravity or some other parameters that effect linkage characteristics. So if you can see how your fit changes CoG and how that effects suspension. Make it into an Excel sheet, test some hypothesis… etc etc.
Obviously that’s a good bit of effort just to compare static numbers or at best a single snapshot in a corner, but it could be a step in between vibes-based testing and what Specialized or Commencal do.
Pretty cool graphics on the Bikeyoke version, and great that they include bar "reach" as well. It is often left out and can make a big...
Pretty cool graphics on the Bikeyoke version, and great that they include bar "reach" as well. It is often left out and can make a big difference in fit.
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in...
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in corners due to their ape hanger setups.
I’m curious if someone like Dak could use this to analyze his fit, then have someone do a bit of crude statics to calculate traction or forces on the body with different fit setups. If I remember correctly there’s a function in Linkage where you can define the center of gravity or some other parameters that effect linkage characteristics. So if you can see how your fit changes CoG and how that effects suspension. Make it into an Excel sheet, test some hypothesis… etc etc.
Obviously that’s a good bit of effort just to compare static numbers or at best a single snapshot in a corner, but it could be a step in between vibes-based testing and what Specialized or Commencal do.
I think this is kind of what fox was doing early this year in Laguna with the camera recording the rider with the telemetry etc. They are using the camera to calculate the rider position dynamically and see how that relates to the bike suspension etc... with suspension position and rider position and bike position you can build a model to look at pretty much whatever you want. How far they took it they didn't really say but they showed them getting enough data...
Surprised that the first change we seemed to see to the Phoenix after this was a longer chainstay? 🤣
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus a centre of gravity spot - at the moment it kind of tells you how the cockpit changes important dimensions but doesn't tell you what that actually means
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
Would be cool if you could compare 2 bikes at once to try to get them to fit similar. also would be nice if you could...
Would be cool if you could compare 2 bikes at once to try to get them to fit similar. also would be nice if you could add reach, hta adjustments, or wheelsize. but would rather use this than AI to figure this math out for me.
First off: Thanks @iceman2058 for sharing this tool here. I just sent it to him one day before to have a look, when we had just put it live, and it's an honour to see it shared amongst other enthusiasts (not to say nerds), like ourselves. @thegromit We were thinking about making the frame specs also indepent between the two setups, and it is easily possible. However, the main idea behind this tool was to be able to play around with different spacers, stem lengths, handlebars and handlebar rotation and to understand what happens when you change this or that on your existing bike. Also, it gives clear idea as to why we think that the current geometry information provided by (most) manufacturers is insifficient and/or misleading. For example, rise is NOT what most people think it is. That's why we came up with the term "stack", whic is measured on the bar ends. Whereas rise is (typically) measured at the point where the transition bend ends. From there the bars go up and back and those measurments is unknown. Our bars for example have 40mm rise, but the bar ends are 25mm higher (65mm stack). Also, almost no other manuzfactrurer specifies reach or setback or whatever you weant to call it. But this is a very importanmt dimension to know where your hands are. We explain all of this here: https://bikeyoke.com/media/6e/59/d6/1741646748/Handlebar%20geometry%20explained.pdf?ts=1780472734
That being said, thanks to a hint from Peter Verdone, I've been rethinking even our measurment and we're contemplating making measurements even simpler by eliminiating the upsweep from the nominal geometry data. You simply rotate the bar to the point where upsweep is 0° and then a bars is fully defined by:
Width Backsweep Stack (in that case this is also rise in the original sense) Reach
As seen in the example below.
It's not really different form what we do, but the base geometry is specified with a unified upsweep of zero, hence eliminating one dimension you have to specifiy.
Width = 800 mm Backsweep = 8.2° Upsweep = 5.7° Stack = 55 mm Reach = -35 mm
It's just the bar from above rotated by 35° forward
You could verify the angles with our calculator.
Currently bars are not comparable because manufacturers don't provide all information. But even if they did, I belive, the unified geometry at 0° upsweep would be most beneficial for everyone.
That's deep nerd talk, but I hope you understand where I am coming from.
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in...
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in corners due to their ape hanger setups.
I’m curious if someone like Dak could use this to analyze his fit, then have someone do a bit of crude statics to calculate traction or forces on the body with different fit setups. If I remember correctly there’s a function in Linkage where you can define the center of gravity or some other parameters that effect linkage characteristics. So if you can see how your fit changes CoG and how that effects suspension. Make it into an Excel sheet, test some hypothesis… etc etc.
Obviously that’s a good bit of effort just to compare static numbers or at best a single snapshot in a corner, but it could be a step in between vibes-based testing and what Specialized or Commencal do.
We're talking about very complex dynamic load distribution here. I believe it is way too complex to calculate anything something universally applicable for the general rider. Mountainbikes are not ridden on even ground like race cars, wehre you know exactly what loads are to be expected in every tunr of a track. Varying slopes, obstacles (that means slope or load on the wheels changes dramatically in a distance of less than the wheelbase), ... is what we are dealing with in Mountainabiking. Some ride leaning more over the front, some ride more over the back, ... Some riders have long upper body, some have a fat ass, some hav a keg as a belly, some have more mass in their upper body, some have strong and heavy legs. Loads change dramatically with small body movements. Way too complex to pack this in a universally applicable equation for everyone. We could discuss endlessly here, and there is certainly no right or wrong. In the end it needs to feel good for the rider and a good base cockpit (even if it's in static measurment) position is the first step to make it work well for them. In Germay we say "things are cooked warmer than they are eaten". You could also say that we are often overthinking things, when riding and trying isoften the oinly way to find out what suits. But understanding what happens to your cockpit when you rotate the bars or install spacers and what it does to your "effective" stem length is something this tool makes very easy to comprehend.
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus...
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus a centre of gravity spot - at the moment it kind of tells you how the cockpit changes important dimensions but doesn't tell you what that actually means
I understand. But wingspan is also not comprehensive enough. How long is your "upper" body. Where are your arms attached to your upper body? Where are the arms relative to your feet? Soime people have short necks or long heads and, while some peoiple might have same height and wingspan, but their arms might be 5cm (or more) further away from their feet: Big difference. So, how deep do you want to dive in there? There more variables you allow to inpout, the more mistakes you can make and the more vague your result gets. Base understanding and tools that allow for little to no mistakes in input are often much more helpful that overengeneered tools where small mistakes can mess up literally everything. My first boss once told me: "If you tried to draw the outlines of Germany very accurately from heart, you are more likely to end up with something much more distorted, than if you just did a quick sketch." I am not sure if that makes sense to you, but this stuck with me ever since.
I understand, we could put an "average" dummy human there in an "average" /whatever that is, because my DH riding is greatly different from my friend Flo's. So the question is: How much does it really help the one currently using the tool? And in the end: We're also a still company. Who would pay for all the effort we're putting into this tool? The tool as it is now is already quite some work (and unprecedented AFAIK). We did it in during work hours and spare time. It's free to use for everyone. How could we justify all the other extras and what would be the return on invest? For several weeks of work, you would have to sell a lot of handlebars and stems to just break even.
First off, a massive huge thank you for putting what you have together! Very grateful for being able to use it. It’s a rad resource to have access too.
Please do make the frame specs independent between the two Sacki, that would be awesome and very helpful (to someone like myself)!
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator"...
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus...
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus a centre of gravity spot - at the moment it kind of tells you how the cockpit changes important dimensions but doesn't tell you what that actually means
I understand. But wingspan is also not comprehensive enough.How long is your "upper" body.Where are your arms attached to your upper body? Where are the arms relative...
I understand. But wingspan is also not comprehensive enough. How long is your "upper" body. Where are your arms attached to your upper body? Where are the arms relative to your feet? Soime people have short necks or long heads and, while some peoiple might have same height and wingspan, but their arms might be 5cm (or more) further away from their feet: Big difference. So, how deep do you want to dive in there? There more variables you allow to inpout, the more mistakes you can make and the more vague your result gets. Base understanding and tools that allow for little to no mistakes in input are often much more helpful that overengeneered tools where small mistakes can mess up literally everything. My first boss once told me: "If you tried to draw the outlines of Germany very accurately from heart, you are more likely to end up with something much more distorted, than if you just did a quick sketch." I am not sure if that makes sense to you, but this stuck with me ever since.
I understand, we could put an "average" dummy human there in an "average" /whatever that is, because my DH riding is greatly different from my friend Flo's. So the question is: How much does it really help the one currently using the tool? And in the end: We're also a still company. Who would pay for all the effort we're putting into this tool? The tool as it is now is already quite some work (and unprecedented AFAIK). We did it in during work hours and spare time. It's free to use for everyone. How could we justify all the other extras and what would be the return on invest? For several weeks of work, you would have to sell a lot of handlebars and stems to just break even.
Please don't take my post as complaining about what you've done - I know making even digital "stuff" and making sure it works takes time and effort (and money!) that could go on other things (and it's remarkably unbranded for something that's kind of a sales tool).
New Tempo is live. Such a rad looking bike but I struggle to think who would buy one in reality. The one available complete model is much burlier then what was offered with the V1, although travel is still the same. I think I'd prefer the older version spec wise, would be fun with some light tyres. Pic below for context.
Me. I’m the one who will probably buy one.
I am not a more travel is better guy. I’ve run hardcore hardtails for many years as my ‘trail’ bike mostly because I couldn’t find a 120mm frame I felt like I could hammer.
This is Cat 5 rated. And comes with a Lyric. Sign me up!
Pretty sure that case went back to the original maestro bikes in 2005 that didn't have a shared lower link/shock mount. Probably why they changed it later!
This is a slight derail but I agree.
My hot take is that the ride quality of the new Lyrik will never be good enough to justify the weight. The previous one was awesome, and so was the one before that. The fact that is being praised as much as it is, opens the door for the other big dogs to keep beefing up. Current Lyrik is nearly identical in weight to the previous gen 38... The Pike was a quality enduro fork in 2017...
Please spec 120-140 fork travel bikes with pikes/non-obese Lyriks/36SLs or even 34's. I'm so sick of weight creep.
I get what youre putting forward but to Commencals reasoning, they sell bikes to those that maybe used to ride YT’s. The people that look at the plenty capable 34 of their bike and think “Ill take a lyrik or stubby 36 and then throw this thing on my lifted Ford Raptor and hit some green and blue lines”. Just because its thicker and bigger. The minority of their market is looking for the 34. Not making this sound like a dickish thing to say, but look at Scotts. I mean theyre pretty sick now days. They will do what you want.
On this general train of thought, one thing I always thought could be genuinely beneficial to the consumer is size specific build kits, particularly on a bike like this. Put a 34 and exo tyres on the smaller sizes, with a 36 and exo+ tyres on the larger sizes. You could do similar things for rotors, bar width etc. More part numbers for the product managers but hey, we can dream.
I think you’re both missing the point of the Tempo. It’s not supposed to be a light efficient trail bike, it’s meant to be a short travel bike that you hammer like an enduro bike, same as the Forbidden Druid (which also comes with a Lyrik/36). Nobody is buying a Tempo to count grams or ride blue trails. The 36 is the right fork for the bike’s intentions. I’d personally also spec gravity tires on it.
The newest gen Lyrik is such a miss being the same weight as a previous gen Zeb. At some point does RS just drop it from the lineup? It’s great to have something in between the Zeb and Pike, but is it really fulfilling that role?
I'd be interested to hear from those who've ridden both the previous Lyrik and now the new LinearXL one that's the weight of the Zeb. I threw my Zeb on my 5010 just for fun and it felt a little out of place but that could have been due to thee stiffness of the bigger stanchions and not the weight.
Love that Commencal is keeping the "short travel all mountain" (5010, Druid, Optic, Spectral 125, etc.) genre alive amidst pretty steady downcountry hype. (been a thing since what? 2018?)
I've got both the new Zeb and Lyrik, and ran the previous versions of both. Old Zeb I had to run an MRP Noken to use most of my travel as opposed to only 2/3, at pressures that were reasonable for the first half of travel. Old Lyrik I had no such issues, but it was noticeably more flexy fore/aft and torsionally than old Zeb. Both new forks are a lot more linear and I'm able to use full travel on big landings at baseline pressures (then add ABO to give some reserve). New Lyrik is more linear than new Zeb, and more than the old Lyrik, and I think it gives up a bit of midstroke support because of this. Both are now tube in tube, use the same air shaft but the sealhead and inner tube are different diameters. The amount of natural ramp on the new Zeb feels perfect to me. New Lyrik is a bit stiffer than the old version, and didn't feel that outgunned when I put it on an ebike for a bit. Less precise, sure, but kinda like running alu rims vs. carbon. The old one felt like it clearly had no place on a 46+ lb ebike, and let you know it... its limit felt like about 42 lb. I ran the new Lyrik at 170mm on my enduro bike for a bit before going to a Zeb on it, and it works and gives it a lively nature but I decided I was willing to pay the Zeb weight tax for the extra stiffness and associated confidence landing jumps into brake bumps, or diving into rutted out berms.
I do think that both Lyrik and Zeb essentially moved up half a bracket in terms of capacity. I think there's a good argument to do a slight update to the Pike but keep it as single tube and bump the max travel up to 160, basically filling in for the old Lyrik.
Curious if you've ridden it? It's really, really good. Although yeah, maybe an odd choice for that bike--but I bet that thing is a heavy hitter and absolutely rips.
In the days of the 36SL, I'm not sure why any 140mm or less bike is getting a new Lyrik, other than supplier partnerships. Seems like the 36SL is the objectively optimal fork for the Tempo. Is the Pike really too flexy to hammer?
Anyway, now here's my maybe even hotter take: Sure, the commencal might be Cat 5, but I don't think bike companies can justify a short travel bike breaking or being less durable because people might ride it too hard. You can't make a bike with enduro-like geometry and then when people ride it fast on hard trails and it breaks go "noooo it wasn't meant for that!!!!" If it's not a true XC race bike, it needs to be able to hold up. Full stop, no matter what rating category you test it to. I don't care how light you make it. If it doesn't stand up, you're a shit company making shit bikes. Mountain bikes are meant to be ridden.
This is just my stupid opinion but I don’t think I’m missing the point.
The “previous” aka the same tempo with dumber routing was super hyped up for being a super efficient bike that also happened to be sort of smashy. All they did was change the marketing language to convince you a bike you should hammer like an enduro bike lol.
Some bikes ride better than others for a certain travel bracket. But a 125mm bike will never be a 150mm + bike.
Yes, but some people can ride a 120mm bike better/harder than most can ride a 160mm bike and they may enjoy that. Those people deserve a bike too. Not everyone wants to be overbiked all the time.
I have a 22 pike at 150mm on my v1 tempo and it seems like the perfect fork for the bike. its 31lbs with a waterbottle and a tool. I've hit some pretty big jumps and drops on it and i weight 190-200. I don't think I need a beefier fork. 36sl seems like a good fit but Rockshox needs to have a lighter 150 fork offering.
I also agree the older build kits fit the bike a little more.
Reasonably certain it was a case of the Pike being an older chassis over the Lyrik. Nothing to do with performance, just timelines.
Not exactly a tech rumor, as this is actually real, but worth a post here I think - BikeYoke has just introduced their new "Cockpit Calculator" (do you have a better name for it?), basically a 3D visualization of how changing your geo and cockpit parameters affect your riding position. It's a pretty neat concept, with a few nice use cases that jump out at us. For example, if you're changing your frame and you want to get as close as possible to your old fit, this could help you figure out exactly what cockpit components you need to get there. Or, if you want to change your handlebar, you could figure out if you need to change the number of spacers and the stem to leave your hands in the same spot. Pretty nifty, and it looks really cool too. What do you think?
The tool can be accessed here: https://bikeyoke.com/en/#3d-cockpit.
Would be cool if you could compare 2 bikes at once to try to get them to fit similar. also would be nice if you could add reach, hta adjustments, or wheelsize. but would rather use this than AI to figure this math out for me.
I use this one quite a bit https://madscientistmtb.com/bike-geometry-compare/
Pretty cool graphics on the Bikeyoke version, and great that they include bar "reach" as well. It is often left out and can make a big difference in fit.
You tried this one @thegromit ?
https://www.bike-stats.de/en
This is super cool and very topical. @Daknorton and @Jason_Schroeder have both talked recently about feeling like they’re falling off the back of their bikes in corners due to their ape hanger setups.
I’m curious if someone like Dak could use this to analyze his fit, then have someone do a bit of crude statics to calculate traction or forces on the body with different fit setups. If I remember correctly there’s a function in Linkage where you can define the center of gravity or some other parameters that effect linkage characteristics. So if you can see how your fit changes CoG and how that effects suspension. Make it into an Excel sheet, test some hypothesis… etc etc.
Obviously that’s a good bit of effort just to compare static numbers or at best a single snapshot in a corner, but it could be a step in between vibes-based testing and what Specialized or Commencal do.
I have not but just got sucked in for about 45mins. Pretty cool TBH
I'm an amateur tech scientist. I am Not a nerd! My mommy told me so.
This is so cool. I’ve always wondered about this but have been too lazy to do the math myself.
I think this is kind of what fox was doing early this year in Laguna with the camera recording the rider with the telemetry etc. They are using the camera to calculate the rider position dynamically and see how that relates to the bike suspension etc... with suspension position and rider position and bike position you can build a model to look at pretty much whatever you want. How far they took it they didn't really say but they showed them getting enough data...
Surprised that the first change we seemed to see to the Phoenix after this was a longer chainstay? 🤣
The AIs make this stuff way easier.
It is indeed pretty cool. Would be really nice if you could enter your height, inside leg, wingspan to put a wireframe human on it plus a centre of gravity spot - at the moment it kind of tells you how the cockpit changes important dimensions but doesn't tell you what that actually means
First off: Thanks @iceman2058 for sharing this tool here.
I just sent it to him one day before to have a look, when we had just put it live, and it's an honour to see it shared amongst other enthusiasts (not to say nerds), like ourselves.
@thegromit We were thinking about making the frame specs also indepent between the two setups, and it is easily possible.
However, the main idea behind this tool was to be able to play around with different spacers, stem lengths, handlebars and handlebar rotation and to understand what happens when you change this or that on your existing bike.
Also, it gives clear idea as to why we think that the current geometry information provided by (most) manufacturers is insifficient and/or misleading. For example, rise is NOT what most people think it is. That's why we came up with the term "stack", whic is measured on the bar ends.
Whereas rise is (typically) measured at the point where the transition bend ends. From there the bars go up and back and those measurments is unknown.
Our bars for example have 40mm rise, but the bar ends are 25mm higher (65mm stack).
Also, almost no other manuzfactrurer specifies reach or setback or whatever you weant to call it. But this is a very importanmt dimension to know where your hands are.
We explain all of this here:
https://bikeyoke.com/media/6e/59/d6/1741646748/Handlebar%20geometry%20explained.pdf?ts=1780472734
That being said, thanks to a hint from Peter Verdone, I've been rethinking even our measurment and we're contemplating making measurements even simpler by eliminiating the upsweep from the nominal geometry data.
You simply rotate the bar to the point where upsweep is 0° and then a bars is fully defined by:
Width
Backsweep
Stack (in that case this is also rise in the original sense)
Reach
As seen in the example below.
It's not really different form what we do, but the base geometry is specified with a unified upsweep of zero, hence eliminating one dimension you have to specifiy.
A bar as seen above
Width = 800mm
Backsweep = 10°
(Upsweep = 0°)
Stack/Rise = 25mm
Reach = -60mm
Is the same as this bar
Width = 800 mm
Backsweep = 8.2°
Upsweep = 5.7°
Stack = 55 mm
Reach = -35 mm
It's just the bar from above rotated by 35° forward
You could verify the angles with our calculator.
Currently bars are not comparable because manufacturers don't provide all information.
But even if they did, I belive, the unified geometry at 0° upsweep would be most beneficial for everyone.
That's deep nerd talk, but I hope you understand where I am coming from.
We're talking about very complex dynamic load distribution here.
I believe it is way too complex to calculate anything something universally applicable for the general rider.
Mountainbikes are not ridden on even ground like race cars, wehre you know exactly what loads are to be expected in every tunr of a track.
Varying slopes, obstacles (that means slope or load on the wheels changes dramatically in a distance of less than the wheelbase), ... is what we are dealing with in Mountainabiking.
Some ride leaning more over the front, some ride more over the back, ...
Some riders have long upper body, some have a fat ass, some hav a keg as a belly, some have more mass in their upper body, some have strong and heavy legs. Loads change dramatically with small body movements.
Way too complex to pack this in a universally applicable equation for everyone.
We could discuss endlessly here, and there is certainly no right or wrong.
In the end it needs to feel good for the rider and a good base cockpit (even if it's in static measurment) position is the first step to make it work well for them.
In Germay we say "things are cooked warmer than they are eaten".
You could also say that we are often overthinking things, when riding and trying isoften the oinly way to find out what suits.
But understanding what happens to your cockpit when you rotate the bars or install spacers and what it does to your "effective" stem length is something this tool makes very easy to comprehend.
I understand.
But wingspan is also not comprehensive enough.
How long is your "upper" body.
Where are your arms attached to your upper body? Where are the arms relative to your feet?
Soime people have short necks or long heads and, while some peoiple might have same height and wingspan, but their arms might be 5cm (or more) further away from their feet: Big difference.
So, how deep do you want to dive in there? There more variables you allow to inpout, the more mistakes you can make and the more vague your result gets.
Base understanding and tools that allow for little to no mistakes in input are often much more helpful that overengeneered tools where small mistakes can mess up literally everything.
My first boss once told me:
"If you tried to draw the outlines of Germany very accurately from heart, you are more likely to end up with something much more distorted, than if you just did a quick sketch."
I am not sure if that makes sense to you, but this stuck with me ever since.
I understand, we could put an "average" dummy human there in an "average" /whatever that is, because my DH riding is greatly different from my friend Flo's. So the question is: How much does it really help the one currently using the tool?
And in the end: We're also a still company. Who would pay for all the effort we're putting into this tool?
The tool as it is now is already quite some work (and unprecedented AFAIK). We did it in during work hours and spare time. It's free to use for everyone. How could we justify all the other extras and what would be the return on invest?
For several weeks of work, you would have to sell a lot of handlebars and stems to just break even.
First off, a massive huge thank you for putting what you have together! Very grateful for being able to use it. It’s a rad resource to have access too.
Please do make the frame specs independent between the two Sacki, that would be awesome and very helpful (to someone like myself)!
Please don't take my post as complaining about what you've done - I know making even digital "stuff" and making sure it works takes time and effort (and money!) that could go on other things (and it's remarkably unbranded for something that's kind of a sales tool).
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker