All

I still remember having a pivot bolt come loose on my M9 at a national race, taking it out in the hotel room to put loctite on it and re-torque it, only to have my friend have to stand on the seat stay so I could thread the bolt back into the upper link. I sold that frame right quick after that…

Just wanted to share my recent experience with 5dev customer service. I had ordered a set of 145mm enduro cranks from them last fall purely out of short crank curiosity. With the never ending winter we had in Utah I hadn't gotten around to installing them and then someone in this thread noted they were actually for youth riders. I contacted them a couple days ago and they were super cool, sent me out a set of the new freeride cranks and a return label for the old ones. I'm aware of the whole wheelie guy debacle, just wanted to...

My friend asked me the same thing a couple of months ago. Here was my answer: Option1 : you keep your shifter and derailleur 1 chainring (narrow -wide) probably a 32t, pay attention to the bolt patterns, there are many standards https://www.amazon.com/s?k=narrow+wide+chainring+104+bcd&sprefix=narrow… it can be as cheap as $10 https://www.amazon.com/DJC-Chainring-104BCD-Aluminum-Lightweight/dp/B09… then you need a wide-range cassette. If you want to keep your shifter and derailleur, stick with 10 speed. something like https://www.amazon.com/Cassette-11-40T-Mountain-Bicycle-Shimano/dp/B07C… an 11-40 is reasonable with your derailleur but if you want more range then your derailleur will be a limitation . the biggest gap between small and big...

6'2" here, ride an XL and have a 33"ish inseam. I had been running 175's on my trail/xc bikes and 170 on my enduro bikes and ebike for years. Recently, I switched to 165's on my enduro bike, 160mm on my ebike and 170 on my trail/xc bike. When I initially built up my enduro bike back in 19', I kept getting tripped up going from 175's on my other bikes and getting on that bike and feeling like my leg/foot speed was so fast and yet it felt like the bike was sluggish, like I was pedaling through molasses...

long cranks for people with a low cadence and shorter cranks for riders with higher cadence seem to work best.

It looks like there's three pivots, the bottom bracket, and the shock mount all going through the two side pieces that are welded together, so thankfully tons of features to fixture while welding. ED: Also since they're all going between the same two side pieces as long as you get those two right everything behind them follows quite nicely.

Done it before a year or so ago...not fun haha (I can barely make sense of it now since I tried to layer a couple of pivot changes on each other)

This is my sketching a while ago just coming to grips with how to determine the IC of a 6-bar layout. I'm not going near drawing the IC migration paths by hand for this monstrosity, I'd much prefer to program it out if I really had to.

That looks like it would be exceedingly difficult to get good pivot alignment and consistent layout on that hand welded frame.

some detail shots of intense DH rig from windrock https://www.vitalmtb.com/intense-prototype-279-hp6-windrock-dhse

Lower more rearward idler, more chain wrap, no need for lower pulley

Nah, thread notifications actually work here.

I was comparing the 2 bikes and notice the new bike carbon tubes are much smaller diameter and different shape. I’d assume this is all for chassis compliance.

Lots of great information and thoughts @Erwan, @shortestcharles ! I agree, there’s tons of factors that could cause this balance feel and no way to really pin point one. It’s just a similar feel that I’ve gotten on a few bikes that have a Virtual Pivot point vs the Trek session with a single pivot. All just speculation and nerding out on why/how bikes behave. I’ve asked some frame designers and some believe the rider can feel the migrating pivot point, but very hard to prove it. The only reason I compare the V5 vs. session, so much is because...

FWIW the nope was aimed at the sketch. Finding the IC of a 6bar is convoluted at best. Drawing out the IC migration for a 6bar system by hand looks like a total pain compared to a 4 bar.

It all has to do with axle path and CS extension. I was riding the Suprem V4.0 when it got released, that bike was great for many things but had a tendency to pitch you forward on hard landing and this was exacerbated in the steeper the landing. Thing is, that bike had a very short reach, combined with a lot of CS growth through the travel It makes your front to rear center ratio change a lot through travel, which make the balance point of your bike change a lot too. I didn't get to try a longer version...

Sorry when I said 'flipped' I meant it's still a six-bar; just a different configuration. Really wish I could get on Linkage and test it out because I really don't want to do it by hand

Could be lots of different factors - geometry, suspension tuning, leverage rate, axle path could all affect that sort of thing. The Trek has a much more consistent anti-rise curve (decreasing from around 78% to 63%) whereas the Supreme's values (while I don't have an actual reference) are definitely faster decreasing. This should in theory lead to an increase in wheel rate based on Hugh McLeay's claims (I went to look them up but unfortunately it seems like he took them down from i-Track's site), which could made the suspension feel firmer under braking and therefore less balanced, but AFAIK...

This PB???