Been doing some vibe coding @Sacki? I built a similar concept for the company I work for who make snowmobile and dirt bike accessories that lets you compare two setups you might wish to purchase; https://cheetahfactoryracing.com/pages/bar-fit-tool
I had thought about building something for mountain bike cockpits based on it but your execution is so good I can put that idea to bed, kudos!
Been doing some vibe coding @Sacki? I built a similar concept for the company I work for who make snowmobile and dirt bike accessories that...
Been doing some vibe coding @Sacki? I built a similar concept for the company I work for who make snowmobile and dirt bike accessories that lets you compare two setups you might wish to purchase; https://cheetahfactoryracing.com/pages/bar-fit-tool
I had thought about building something for mountain bike cockpits based on it but your execution is so good I can put that idea to bed, kudos!
Hey I run your bar/riser setup on my 9r! Great stuff.
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...
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.
Best way to change an engineers mind is with enough testing data that they think it’s their idea to do the change 🤣
@MountainsOfSussex No offense taken at all. Sorry if I sounded getting defensive. I am definitely thinking about extending the functionality, but I think it woudl be a different tool (this one was was originally just a "Cockpit Calculator" and iut had become already more thna that and with more features than I had originally planed.
I've been a fork, shock and and frame designer before I founded BikeYoke, so there are plenty of ideas I already have. But there are just so many things you need to consider when leaving the realm of static nominal frame geometry.
Going to settings in sag is something that seems easy, but it starts with availability and accurateness of data:
Does the frame manufacturer state the chainstay length as the actual distance from BB to rear axle oir is it only the horizontal component of it. Sometimes you you simply don't know. With currently common BB drop values, it does not matter much, but if you wanna do it, you wanna do it right, right? 32" wheels will come with bigger BB drops and at some point it will start to make a difference.
Is rear wheel travel of your bike stated the vertical component only or ist it the lenght of the axle path? Or is it the distance between fully extended and fully compressed?
How about kinematics? 30% sag at the shock does not mean that you are sitting at 30% of the rear wheel travel. Chainstay growth will have an effect on how much the bike rotates. And there are big differences in chainstay growths between bikes
Mullet wheel sizing makes things even more complicated.
...
Lots and lots of things you need to consider and customers also need to understand.
And that is all before we even remotely start talking about center of gravity or dynamic load changes.
So far I am really hapy with how the tool currently is, but rest assured this will not be the end of it. We'll see how far we go can comfortly know.
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...
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? 🤣
Best way to change an engineers mind is with enough testing data that they think it’s their idea to do the change 🤣
🤣
I think in reality the Phoenix has shorter CS probably in part because BK is a bit more old school. But with the new riders on the team, there was interest in trying longer. It’s gotta be tough when you have a team with a bunch of different people. Kind of surprised we don’t see more swappable dropout type things. Reach adjust is common, why not the other end too?
@storm.racing Let me see what we can do. ;-) It woudl be cool if you guys could spread the wortd about the tool. It might help other manufacturers jump on board of unifying the way bars are measured. Or maybe that's a bad idea in terms of sales possibilities because we are then comparable with other brands. 🤣
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?
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...
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.
Amazing tool. I know it's 3D as well, but is there a reason why the input values are somewhat limited? I kinda think some could be a bit bigger, but granted, it applies more to trying to make two different frames fit than comparing cockpits.
As for handlebar dimensions, agreed, it's a shit show. Designing a 55 mm rise handlebar three years ago and actually making one we were completely puzzled how it can be more or less the same as a 35 mm rise handlebar. Turns out rise is not the actual height of the bars. Plus, later testing out different backsweep/upsweep values, we wanted to test only the difference in angle without affecting the fore/aft position so we came to the setback (negative reach as you put) value as well.
Defining only one angle is all fine and well, but how do you then align your bars? And you still have the rise and setback affecting the overall geometry and the rider position and the higher these values are, the more effect they will have rolling the handlebars besides the backsweep and upsweep. So there is a base orientation that probably works best as it is what was designed originally. Orientation is also a big point of contention that we have internally as you don't have anything to base your measurement off and almost any orientation theoretically works. Plus the markings on the bars don't really tell you what they mean, they can be off, etc. We also saw that less aggressive riders tend to roll bars a bit more backwards for example, but Jackson Goldstone rolls his quite a bit forward.
Then if you have bars like OneUp, rolling the outside the designed orientation will affect the way they perform as well.
Maybe providing less values might make sense, but on the other hand it would make the setup even more involved than it already is.
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026. Check the instructions below to see if your fork falls in the affected range of serial numbers, in which case RockShox suggests that you stop riding the fork until further instruction. We await further information from RockShox as to what the next steps may be, as and when they will communicate those.
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026...
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026. Check the instructions below to see if your fork falls in the affected range of serial numbers, in which case RockShox suggests that you stop riding the fork until further instruction. We await further information from RockShox as to what the next steps may be, as and when they will communicate those.
This is clearly a big enough issue to be a liability for SRAM but I’m yet to hear of it actually happening. Has anyone here seen this failure in the flesh?
Maybe no injuries have been reported.. If Sram noticed the problem, a service bulletin is a good step. If it was bad enough, they could do a voluntary recall.. But, if they can avoid getting the government involved, it's best to do that.. The CPSC adds a whole new level of PITA..
Also, they probably don't know how many are affected. If they get some back and find a high percentage are affected, they might move to a voluntary recall..
Amazing tool. I know it's 3D as well, but is there a reason why the input values are somewhat limited? I kinda think some could be...
Amazing tool. I know it's 3D as well, but is there a reason why the input values are somewhat limited? I kinda think some could be a bit bigger, but granted, it applies more to trying to make two different frames fit than comparing cockpits.
As for handlebar dimensions, agreed, it's a shit show. Designing a 55 mm rise handlebar three years ago and actually making one we were completely puzzled how it can be more or less the same as a 35 mm rise handlebar. Turns out rise is not the actual height of the bars. Plus, later testing out different backsweep/upsweep values, we wanted to test only the difference in angle without affecting the fore/aft position so we came to the setback (negative reach as you put) value as well.
Defining only one angle is all fine and well, but how do you then align your bars? And you still have the rise and setback affecting the overall geometry and the rider position and the higher these values are, the more effect they will have rolling the handlebars besides the backsweep and upsweep. So there is a base orientation that probably works best as it is what was designed originally. Orientation is also a big point of contention that we have internally as you don't have anything to base your measurement off and almost any orientation theoretically works. Plus the markings on the bars don't really tell you what they mean, they can be off, etc. We also saw that less aggressive riders tend to roll bars a bit more backwards for example, but Jackson Goldstone rolls his quite a bit forward.
Then if you have bars like OneUp, rolling the outside the designed orientation will affect the way they perform as well.
Maybe providing less values might make sense, but on the other hand it would make the setup even more involved than it already is.
Which input values would you like to see less limited? Specifying the bars at the zero upsweep rotation setting is not any different from what we're doing. It's just providing geometric figures at a unified setting. As long as all relevant values arte provided, I don't really care in which rotation setting a bar is specified. It could be the "as intended" / "as designed" setting. But these value are required: Width Upsweep Backsweep Reach Stack Then you hava a fully defined bar and. And that is what most manufacturters are not doing. Getting every manufacturer to specifiy their bars like this, would be a first step.
I just noticed that all of my posts since @iceman2058 shared the link to our tool received exactly one downvote. Therefore I would like to learn what was the reason for the downvotes. If the users who were responsible for the anonymous downvotes could be man or woman enough to explain here, what was wrong with what I posted, I'd be very grateful. I'm happy to learn and improve.
If, however, they only have a personal issue with me and nothing is wrong with the actual posts, then I recommend to go grow up or touch some grass.That's childish behaviour.
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026...
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026. Check the instructions below to see if your fork falls in the affected range of serial numbers, in which case RockShox suggests that you stop riding the fork until further instruction. We await further information from RockShox as to what the next steps may be, as and when they will communicate those.
That’s a fairly significant boo-boo for a company of this size in 2026. It’d be interesting to see a root cause analysis and whether or not a FMEA for that feature was done.
wonder if its going to be a noodle like the v5. I hated that bike, flexed alot in the rear, the SX version I got to...
wonder if its going to be a noodle like the v5. I hated that bike, flexed alot in the rear, the SX version I got to ride was better with the seatstay brace
Also, production quality (especially the alignment) on the Meta V5, Meta SX V5 and Tempo V1 was absolutely AWFUL. So many forum posts showing misaligned frames of the models using the VCS suspension layout.
I really wanted a Meta SX V5 when it came out, immediately ordered a frame kit as soon as it became available and was devastated to see that the swingarm was so warped that it scraped against the linkage during suspension compression. Returned the first frame, just to have it replaced with another one that had the exact same issue. Those frames should have never passed QC.
Gave up after that and bought a Specialized instead.
I just noticed that all of my posts since @iceman2058 shared the link to our tool received exactly one downvote. Therefore I would like to learn...
I just noticed that all of my posts since @iceman2058 shared the link to our tool received exactly one downvote. Therefore I would like to learn what was the reason for the downvotes. If the users who were responsible for the anonymous downvotes could be man or woman enough to explain here, what was wrong with what I posted, I'd be very grateful. I'm happy to learn and improve.
If, however, they only have a personal issue with me and nothing is wrong with the actual posts, then I recommend to go grow up or touch some grass.That's childish behaviour.
lol, I was wondering how long it'd take you to start crying 🤣
Been doing some vibe coding @Sacki? I built a similar concept for the company I work for who make snowmobile and dirt bike accessories that lets you compare two setups you might wish to purchase; https://cheetahfactoryracing.com/pages/bar-fit-tool
I had thought about building something for mountain bike cockpits based on it but your execution is so good I can put that idea to bed, kudos!
Hey I run your bar/riser setup on my 9r! Great stuff.
Best way to change an engineers mind is with enough testing data that they think it’s their idea to do the change 🤣
@MountainsOfSussex No offense taken at all. Sorry if I sounded getting defensive. I am definitely thinking about extending the functionality, but I think it woudl be a different tool (this one was was originally just a "Cockpit Calculator" and iut had become already more thna that and with more features than I had originally planed.
I've been a fork, shock and and frame designer before I founded BikeYoke, so there are plenty of ideas I already have.
But there are just so many things you need to consider when leaving the realm of static nominal frame geometry.
Going to settings in sag is something that seems easy, but it starts with availability and accurateness of data:
Does the frame manufacturer state the chainstay length as the actual distance from BB to rear axle oir is it only the horizontal component of it. Sometimes you you simply don't know.
With currently common BB drop values, it does not matter much, but if you wanna do it, you wanna do it right, right?
32" wheels will come with bigger BB drops and at some point it will start to make a difference.
Is rear wheel travel of your bike stated the vertical component only or ist it the lenght of the axle path? Or is it the distance between fully extended and fully compressed?
How about kinematics?
30% sag at the shock does not mean that you are sitting at 30% of the rear wheel travel.
Chainstay growth will have an effect on how much the bike rotates. And there are big differences in chainstay growths between bikes
Mullet wheel sizing makes things even more complicated.
...
Lots and lots of things you need to consider and customers also need to understand.
And that is all before we even remotely start talking about center of gravity or dynamic load changes.
So far I am really hapy with how the tool currently is, but rest assured this will not be the end of it.
We'll see how far we go can comfortly know.
🤣
I think in reality the Phoenix has shorter CS probably in part because BK is a bit more old school. But with the new riders on the team, there was interest in trying longer. It’s gotta be tough when you have a team with a bunch of different people. Kind of surprised we don’t see more swappable dropout type things. Reach adjust is common, why not the other end too?
@storm.racing Let me see what we can do. ;-)
It woudl be cool if you guys could spread the wortd about the tool. It might help other manufacturers jump on board of unifying the way bars are measured. Or maybe that's a bad idea in terms of sales possibilities because we are then comparable with other brands. 🤣
I vaguely remember reading this a while back. I just received this in some email spam from Eibach...
I think Eibach has been making springs for SAR for a while, though I think the 20lb increment is new.
when vibe coding goes right!
Amazing tool. I know it's 3D as well, but is there a reason why the input values are somewhat limited? I kinda think some could be a bit bigger, but granted, it applies more to trying to make two different frames fit than comparing cockpits.
As for handlebar dimensions, agreed, it's a shit show. Designing a 55 mm rise handlebar three years ago and actually making one we were completely puzzled how it can be more or less the same as a 35 mm rise handlebar. Turns out rise is not the actual height of the bars. Plus, later testing out different backsweep/upsweep values, we wanted to test only the difference in angle without affecting the fore/aft position so we came to the setback (negative reach as you put) value as well.
Defining only one angle is all fine and well, but how do you then align your bars? And you still have the rise and setback affecting the overall geometry and the rider position and the higher these values are, the more effect they will have rolling the handlebars besides the backsweep and upsweep. So there is a base orientation that probably works best as it is what was designed originally. Orientation is also a big point of contention that we have internally as you don't have anything to base your measurement off and almost any orientation theoretically works. Plus the markings on the bars don't really tell you what they mean, they can be off, etc. We also saw that less aggressive riders tend to roll bars a bit more backwards for example, but Jackson Goldstone rolls his quite a bit forward.
Then if you have bars like OneUp, rolling the outside the designed orientation will affect the way they perform as well.
Maybe providing less values might make sense, but on the other hand it would make the setup even more involved than it already is.
RockShox has issued a retailer notice regarding a potential defect in a number of ZEB fork variants manufactured between week 7 and week 42 of 2026. Check the instructions below to see if your fork falls in the affected range of serial numbers, in which case RockShox suggests that you stop riding the fork until further instruction. We await further information from RockShox as to what the next steps may be, as and when they will communicate those.
This is clearly a big enough issue to be a liability for SRAM but I’m yet to hear of it actually happening. Has anyone here seen this failure in the flesh?
so why is that not a recall?
Maybe no injuries have been reported.. If Sram noticed the problem, a service bulletin is a good step. If it was bad enough, they could do a voluntary recall.. But, if they can avoid getting the government involved, it's best to do that.. The CPSC adds a whole new level of PITA..
Also, they probably don't know how many are affected. If they get some back and find a high percentage are affected, they might move to a voluntary recall..
Which input values would you like to see less limited?
Specifying the bars at the zero upsweep rotation setting is not any different from what we're doing.
It's just providing geometric figures at a unified setting.
As long as all relevant values arte provided, I don't really care in which rotation setting a bar is specified.
It could be the "as intended" / "as designed" setting.
But these value are required:
Width
Upsweep
Backsweep
Reach
Stack
Then you hava a fully defined bar and. And that is what most manufacturters are not doing.
Getting every manufacturer to specifiy their bars like this, would be a first step.
I just noticed that all of my posts since @iceman2058 shared the link to our tool received exactly one downvote. Therefore I would like to learn what was the reason for the downvotes. If the users who were responsible for the anonymous downvotes could be man or woman enough to explain here, what was wrong with what I posted, I'd be very grateful. I'm happy to learn and improve.
If, however, they only have a personal issue with me and nothing is wrong with the actual posts, then I recommend to go grow up or touch some grass.That's childish behaviour.
That’s a fairly significant boo-boo for a company of this size in 2026. It’d be interesting to see a root cause analysis and whether or not a FMEA for that feature was done.
Also, production quality (especially the alignment) on the Meta V5, Meta SX V5 and Tempo V1 was absolutely AWFUL. So many forum posts showing misaligned frames of the models using the VCS suspension layout.
I really wanted a Meta SX V5 when it came out, immediately ordered a frame kit as soon as it became available and was devastated to see that the swingarm was so warped that it scraped against the linkage during suspension compression. Returned the first frame, just to have it replaced with another one that had the exact same issue. Those frames should have never passed QC.
Gave up after that and bought a Specialized instead.
lol, I was wondering how long it'd take you to start crying 🤣
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker