All

Greatest timed downhill run of all time, no question.

Ah, the good old FreeCaster days… After Danny’s run I was pretty shocked, as was everyone. With four or five people left I couldn’t see anyone topping it considering the carnage that had happening up to that point. I was rooting for Gwin pretty hard, then he slid out in a straight away. And that’s how crazy Danny’s run was. Nobody remembers that Atherton, Minnaar and Gwin were still left at the top! Probably one of the most exciting live TV events I’ve ever experienced. Nigel and Rob‘s commentary was the cherry on the cake.

That made my day, thanks for posting. 🤣👍

The polished bikes look so sick

Over under on Neko and Logan getting into a fight in the pits?

Yeah, super tough season for him. Especially with how the first race went. After that race he was probably like, “ok I know what to do to make it into finals and possibly podium.” And then just gets put through the wringer at every other race. I do wonder if thing would have been different if they were still taking 60 finals. Would he have made more top ten finishes with one more shot at a race? Anywho, stoked for him. Total beast to rock up and take the W Last random thought. Wonder what he’s up to next year...

Animal. Races some Enduro, focuses on DH, shows up at Worlds and takes it.

A picture is worth a thousand words!

Lightsaber-RESISTANT, to sweat the fine print

I suspect if you dug into the logic behind the "statics regime" you'd find a fundamental flaw or two. I suspect the logic is that if the IC is on the chain line then chain tension would have no net impact on suspension movement. While this might sound plausible, it has one major flaw... it fails to take into account the reaction force at the tire/ground interface.

This is just a guy who has got entirely lost in the weeds. There is no "antisquat theory" that some cabal of bike engineers is pushing. Antisquat can be calculated several ways but the results are always exactly the same. It's a proportion of drive force acting on the shock to weight transfer on the shock. Moving your pivots anywhere on the bike doesn't change this. Pedal-kickback is a much less well defined metric (especially when considering some of the dynamic effects) but the metric is still fundamentally tied to the geometry of a chain-cog system. There is literally nothing...

Assuming equal chain growth numbers, no linkage system can make your wheel more likely to roll forward as opposed to rotate the cranks backwards. Chain tension is always resolved by torque at the cranks. This is basically why you are able to pedal a bike. If chain tension didn't require torque at the cranks you'd have something similar to a perpetual motion machine or you'd be able to propel the bike forward by just bouncing up and down on the seat with your legs straight out to the side (while that one is silly too, it does actually involve energy...

I'm sorry, I can't help it: An impact that " forces the rear wheel to rotate forwards" is the same thing as an impact that " deals with chain growth by rotating the pedals backward or stiffening the suspension." In the above diagram, the red force is the impact at the rear wheel. As the rear wheel is being held back by the red impact force, the rear center is growing, which is creating chain tension, which also stiffens the suspension. The suspension can't compress and absorb the bump until the increasing chain tension is relieved, and the chain tension...

I forgot one: 6) He believes people cannot understand his idea, despite supposedly being based on basic mechanical principles.

To be fair, Matt isn’t trying to explain anything. He’s letting the guy say his own piece and he’s not pushing him on it. But he is riding the bike and comment on its characteristics. As you said, he's good at riding bikes.

The problem is not his design but his explanation of why it works. There's a lot of common things that should always ring alarm bells in any technical discussion and generally indicate that the person making them doesn't understand what's going on. 1) He discredits an established theory that has logical assumptions, is based on basic principles and has been proven through countless designs. 2) He's invented his own language to describe technical concepts. 3) His arguments are not consistent, e.g. he states there is no kickback and then says instead the chain force rotates the wheel forward. 4) He...

What exactly is the concept, though? There's a bit of word salad going on and ride feedback that doesn't make sense. For example " The chassis is very stable, and in a way it's as if the bumps you encounter only affect one wheel at a time. That sounds silly to write down, because that happens on any bike. The difference here is that the rear wheel is free to move out of the way without disrupting the pitch of the bike." To me that sounds like the result of a heavy frame... One of the reasons to add weight...

I’m intrigued by the design and concept. I still can’t wrap my head around it, but I do respect Matt Beer as a rider and tester and he says that it does have merit. The comments section on the article is heating up though. “ Sorry Chris- This design infringes on the CBF patent. You won't be able to sell it in the US. I bet it rides amazing though. But if your Center of Curvature is on the chainring- It is a CBF.” -post by Chris Canfield

If everything we think we know is wrong, and he's redefining suspension kinematics, you know what would be super cool? A graph. Or a force diagram. You know, what you learn in the first year of an engineering program. Please show us a graphical representation of why everything we think we know is wrong.

That's the spirit