2020 Bike Wants

Related:
Create New Tag

12/26/2018 4:44 AM

If someone made a bike with modern numbers and a derailleur inside the front triangle, I'd buy it pretty much immediately. The Honda patent must be coming to an end soon.
Gearboxes just aren't the future

|

12/26/2018 4:53 AM

One thing that would actually be good would be dropper seatpost that drops without having to seat on it.

Any Electronic stuff: gimmicks
Longer travel seatpost: gimmicks
Gearbox: i would love it but I can't see a big enough breaktrough happening within a year to make them light/efficient/affordable.
Geo: pretty dialed for average size people which I am.

|

12/26/2018 5:37 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/26/2018 5:40 AM

Above all, the mtb industry must solve the issue of flats! A few cues:
- pool noodles are not the answer, they belong to swimming pools, not bicycle tires. It's the equivalent of giving carbon legs to an asthmatic runner.
- 1.6kg tires ARE NOT a solution.
- The tire/rim interface has never really been questioned for decades, since most of the flats are pinchflats this is where the thinking has to go.

Other topics that need to be tackled.
- this (good) trend of lengthening reach must be followed by lengthened chainstays, otherwise the rider must conscientiously adapt is riding by putting the weight forward when entering corners. Unbalace, no thanks! Look at Pole if in need of inspiration.
- Leave the philosophy of "efficiency for the sake of it" to capitalist pricks and roadies. It's not wrong if your head tube is not 10% stiffer(I see you trek) or if bb is not 3mm lower then the previous model. When designing, put fun, joy and playfulness at the core of your development. We've reached the maturity to make such bikes viably competitive against the clock regardless.
- Think about sustainability and ecology when designing . Market it, label it, don't care. We, as riders, connect with nature thru biking. So make this connection a concern and a goal to reach.
- More focus on cable routing. No, Pivot and Scott, the underside of a bb is not where the hose brake should protrude. It can't be an afterthough when you ask 10k for a bike.
- Hey Sram, let the hydraulic remote go. I know, you wanted it to work. But it sucks, requires constant bleedings and it's impossible to service trailside.
- Bsa 30, universal hub sizes all across categories, zs headsets, universal direct mount standard for chainrings, swat box or built-in storage, ROOM FOR WATERBOTTLE INSIDE FRONT TRIANGLE, more high-end builds on alu frames.

|

12/26/2018 7:08 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/26/2018 7:08 AM

Easy, I NEED a 100 degree seat tube angle. Anything less is UNRIDEABLE (...or maybe I just struggle climbing so badly that I’ll blame anything.)

|

12/26/2018 8:54 AM

A dropper post that makes use of a square/triangular shaft and roller bearings. Basically a Lefty in seatpost form.

|

12/26/2018 9:49 AM

spech wrote:

How about chainstays that get longer as you size up? Nothing less than 445 mm on large 29ers

Honestly, not as badly needed as it might seem weight distribution wise. As long as you get real, actual steep seat tube angles for larger sizes (and maybe even make them slacker for small sizes! Though that would cause seat-tire issues).

Currently the ass of XXL riders gets slammed too far rearwards and a longer chainstay helps. If you put your weight more forwards, you can still put enough weight on the front axle even with a relatively short chainstay. Plus, with really steep seat tubes, you need longer reach numbers to get the correct cockpit length (the actually important measurement, reach is useless, this being the case that proves that). That increases the wheelbase as well, with a longer chainstay adding to that again.

|

12/26/2018 10:09 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/26/2018 10:10 AM

chup29 wrote:

This is mostly a rant but here goes...

I have a long list of achievable things by 2020 (in the hands of intelligent hardworking people) but unfortunately they may realistically be 10-15 years out due to the ridiculous marketing development schedule because yay bike industry!!! Lets sell tiny incremental improvements because we can!!! whoooo!!!!!! We're so smart!!!! If we just package it slightly different but don't change anything fundamental these idiots will keep buying it!!!! So... 2020 goals still seem like a pipedream to me....

Anyway - Id like to see structural batteries (HEY E-BIKE ENGINEERS - LOOK - SOMEONE ELSE DID YOUR WORK FOR YOU!!! - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181018082702.htm) and id also like to see at least some ebikes have proper geometry, as proven by the numerous successful enduro bikes with reasonable bb heights, long tt lengths, proper chainstays and ha's under 65.5. Storing energy in the carbon used to make the frame would drastically reduce the weight of e-bikes, bringing them into the realm of "one bike" possibility for more riders. It would obviously drive the cost way up for a period but who wouldn't want a 30lb e-bike with decent geometry. You could ride with assistance on the climbs and lose nothing on the downhills. This will only make our sport better... Furthermore, it would not be hard to integrate electronic shifting into an e-bike in order to cut the power at the exact moment that the shift is taking place in order to save wear on the cassette. Literally that would take like 1 intelligent programmer messing around. Seriously.

Id like to see the big companies finally put some effort into improving gearboxes rather than making us continually buy their overpriced and shitty deraillers. I understand the efficiency argument, i just think you industry people are too stupid to get creative in order to get around it. Remember Honda? Big Japanese company? They figured out a basic solution preeeeeetty quickly... (Admittedly it did cost a lot but hey, that amount of polished swingarms don't come cheap... Worth it.)

Id like to see specialized sue someone else and flop miserably like the cafe roubaix fiasco - thats just for personal satisfaction though. Maybe someone will buy fuji's parent company and pull their trademark - that would also make me happy...

I want the bike industry to settle on one standard for things like bb and rear axles. I realize this is also a pipedream because I imagine bike industry board meetings typically go along these lines: "f*ck the consumers and making them happy - we're the bike industry!!! Lets keep selling them random useless standards because we dont have any other ideas for how to make our bikes better and changing something that doesnt need changing is perfect to sell more bikes. Now lets play the jerkoff cookie game with the interns to make them think we're cool. Sigma Pi 5ever!!! We're so smart giggle snort"

I think the current geometry on enduro bikes is getting better but nobody other than the small companies seem to want to actually make a progressive step. Its very simple. Steeper seat-tube angles, longer chainstays that get longer depending on the size, properly sized bikes for all human sizes. Slacker head angles. Lower bottom brackets. Longer wheelbases in general.

Also - how about designing durable products? Why does everything seem like its designed to fail after a couple months? Why do dropper posts still have that wiggle in the seat? Why cant you guys figure this out? How many of you active practicing industry engineers simply have high school diplomas? Seriously, how hard is it to actually use high end materials in your high end products? Im sick of opening expensive high-end products and discovering that they were manufactured using mostly cheap materials with some small higher end pieces to disguise the cheapness. I do not care about spending more for actual quality.

Side Rant - I'd like to see better trails being built. We dont need more IMBA style trail sanitation efforts. Darwinism. Learn to ride properly or break everything and go home to rant about braking bumps on the internet. We need more technical trails that are actually fun. Also steeper. Steeper better trails. Less pansies. Go ride a fireroad if you want that sanitized BS. Stop ruining the fun trails for everyone else. Everything doesn't need to be "all-inclusive."

So... to sum that all up without the anger. I want to see some structural battery progress for e-bikes. I want to see better geometry for e-bikes. I want to see standardized bb's and rear axles. I want to see steeper seat angles on bikes designed to climb. I want to see longer chainstays. I want to see slacker head angles. I want to see lower bottom brackets. I want to see more durable products built using better materials. I want to see less marketing and more intelligence.




I'd go the other way, make e-bikes rideable without power. So you in essence get a bike when you remove the battery and/or maybe even the motor. But yeah, it could be done, but on the other hand it's just a strong casing, that would need to tie into the frame better. I suppose making aluminium tubes with proper insertion options or carbon frames is easier in the end, since it's less finicky and has less issues than a structural battery. And you want to remove that damn thing since some people charge it in their apartments, not on the bikes.
Loving the electronic shifting and cutting the power idea though!

I'm afraid the 1x trend and over 500 % of range has effectively killed the gearbox, more or less for good. Plus, Honda's bike was a DH bike. DH bikes can get by with mor inefficiencies much easier than an enduro/trail bike...

No comment on the Spec part.

That would be cool. But there were comments comparing MTB to MX. They also went through many different manufacturers of bikes, suspension and gear, went through ever larger wheels that were then scaled back and the like, where motocross bikes are now very similar to one another, indistinguishable to a general observer, when you take the plastics and the branding off. I hope mountain bikes are going through the same period now.

People are going insane when they read '500 mm of reach', yet they can't even understand that number properly and what it means. Of course the reach will be insane when you have a 78° seat tube angle. But people will still be scared and will rather go off and buy an Enduro. That's why big brands don't want to go extreme, the thing will not sell well. Unless you have a diehard base of customers, ala Apple.

I'm gonna touch on the seat posts and their wobblines. I also don't like cheap materials on expensive products, but hey, if it works... Anyway, the wobbly seatposts, they are round. You could make them less wiggly by making them another shape (oval would probably work best, sealing, bearing and manufacturing wise). Crank Brothers did something along those lines (flat surfaces on a round-ish post). The catch then is all the sealing and bearing components and surfaces, which usually come ready made in cheap, nice, round packages. Plus the manufacturing is cheaper, faster, easier for round things (lathes and the like), usually. So you just have to deal with it on round posts, which is done with keys. And keys need some gap in the keyways for them to be able to move. That's the wiggling. You could make all of that tighter, but the post could then bind and it would be even more expensive due to insane tolerances and more NOK parts during production. Take a look at single sided forks in this regard for example, how they solve this issue. We could also go twin tube on the posts though...

As for trails, we have some rough stuff here in Slovenia, when we ride (illegally of course) hiking trails. These are old trails, worn into the sides of the mountains. The trails are not always that flowy and have hard details in them. I love it. The purpose built stuff is much more flowy, like all over the world. The thing is that certain principles for trail building just work across the whole population, and the better riders then stick out form the average, sadly. And we also need purpose built trails in Slovenia, since the sport is booming, we can't fit all the bikers and hikers on hiking trails. And hard, technical details over rocks and roots usually are not sustainable for a massively abused trail. Either the riding frequency or the water will kill it :/ But i do agree about the sanitization, it's really weird to see some Canadian, even North Shore videos on what are basically manicured trails. Sure, they have big jumps and stuff, but you can't learn and progress on things like that. I much prefer the natural, walked-in style of trails. Walking over the rocks and roots gives them a certain charm that can't be manmade (well, not with a shovel and tools, but i hope you know what i mean).

|

12/26/2018 10:11 AM

Erwan_Ghesquiere wrote:

One thing that would actually be good would be dropper seatpost that drops without having to seat on it.

Any Electronic stuff: gimmicks
Longer travel seatpost: gimmicks
Gearbox: i would love it but I can't see a big enough breaktrough happening within a year to make them light/efficient/affordable.
Geo: pretty dialed for average size people which I am.

So you basically want a gimmick (auto-dropper post), but don't want a gimmick?

|

12/26/2018 10:13 AM

jcook wrote:

A dropper post that makes use of a square/triangular shaft and roller bearings. Basically a Lefty in seatpost form.

I see sealing the issue here... And with roller bearings, the weight as well. It's easier with a lefty since you can repackage the weight from the other fork leg.

|

12/26/2018 10:24 AM

Jdasco wrote:

Above all, the mtb industry must solve the issue of flats! A few cues:
- pool noodles are not the answer, they belong to swimming pools, not bicycle tires. It's the equivalent of giving carbon legs to an asthmatic runner.
- 1.6kg tires ARE NOT a solution.
- The tire/rim interface has never really been questioned for decades, since most of the flats are pinchflats this is where the thinking has to go.

Other topics that need to be tackled.
- this (good) trend of lengthening reach must be followed by lengthened chainstays, otherwise the rider must conscientiously adapt is riding by putting the weight forward when entering corners. Unbalace, no thanks! Look at Pole if in need of inspiration.
- Leave the philosophy of "efficiency for the sake of it" to capitalist pricks and roadies. It's not wrong if your head tube is not 10% stiffer(I see you trek) or if bb is not 3mm lower then the previous model. When designing, put fun, joy and playfulness at the core of your development. We've reached the maturity to make such bikes viably competitive against the clock regardless.
- Think about sustainability and ecology when designing . Market it, label it, don't care. We, as riders, connect with nature thru biking. So make this connection a concern and a goal to reach.
- More focus on cable routing. No, Pivot and Scott, the underside of a bb is not where the hose brake should protrude. It can't be an afterthough when you ask 10k for a bike.
- Hey Sram, let the hydraulic remote go. I know, you wanted it to work. But it sucks, requires constant bleedings and it's impossible to service trailside.
- Bsa 30, universal hub sizes all across categories, zs headsets, universal direct mount standard for chainrings, swat box or built-in storage, ROOM FOR WATERBOTTLE INSIDE FRONT TRIANGLE, more high-end builds on alu frames.

Well, nobody is questioning the rim-tire interface of cars, yet, by driving over a rock, i managed to cut thr sidewalls of two tires at the end of this summer. For the primary intended purpose, i think the interface works quite well. I think it's a bit our fault for riding with no air over sharp rocks. And some people never flat while others always have flats. Might be related to riding technique as well?

But yeah, pool noodles and 1,6 kg tyres are not the answer. And i'm not sure what is.

Other topics:
-the reach is lengthening much more than the chainstays are longer on Poles compared to other bikes. Because a longer reach pulls you forward over the front wheel already and gives you a better weight distribution. You just mustn't ride a bike like that over the rear, you have to be centred. If you don't like that, go for a shorter bike. Easy.

-agreed. Most people don't race they ride for fun. Most people don't vene want to go faster, they just want to have more fun. Longer, slacker, etc. bikes are not a solution for them. At least not necessarily.

-more or less agreed, but i don't have such strong views on this.

-and make them external. I hate it when the cables rattle inside the frame. I know carbon frames have cable guides inside, but i care exactly 0 % about carbon, it's aluminium where it's at for me, thanks.

-i like the hydraulic remote and would like hydraulic shifting to get rid of the cables. True about trailside repairs, but i bled my remote... twice. Both times when i had the post serviced. If anything, i'd have them fix the sagging post due to air coming into the oil chamber.

-yes to more high end builds on alu frames, why would i have to buy a carbon frame witht he same shitty equipment for more money than a spec with alu frame and proper equipment would be worth? And aluminium is not an inferior material, if anything, it's superior, since it has better crash resistance. And even if it's damaged, i can see it, the carbon can be damaged on the inside, where you can't see it. Plus, half the carbon only frames require it due to the complexity of the frame. Which, if you ask me, is not needed. Sure, there are 'looks like a session' comments. But what's wrong with that? The shock is mounted at the BB, where the frame is very strong. The rocker is mounted by the seat-tube - top-tube interface, where the frame is strong. You made the frame using three tubes (plus the BB and headtube, of course), it's stiff, it's light, and... HAS A PLACE FOR THE WATER BOTTLE!

|

12/26/2018 10:38 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/26/2018 10:40 AM

Cheaper reynolds steel frames! (this is directed more at reynolds than frame manufacturers)

|

12/26/2018 12:26 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/26/2018 12:31 PM

spech wrote:

How about chainstays that get longer as you size up? Nothing less than 445 mm on large 29ers

I think Norco does that.

Want long? 455ish mm on my Banshee Prime using their 'long' drop-outs.

|

12/26/2018 12:41 PM

I don’t think current derailleur drivetrains have killed the gearbox at all. The industry just needs to support them more, and then the designs will improve. Gear range has no appeal to me, I could(and still may) go back to a 11-36 1x10spd and be just fine. The gearbox appeals to me because all that drivetrain weight is where it should be. I can’t stand how massive the cassettes have become and the derailleur might as well be kickstand.

|

12/26/2018 12:50 PM

Trail bikes with a specific 27.5" rear and 29" front. Especially for smaller to medium riders.

|

12/26/2018 1:44 PM

finanegans wrote:

Uhhh..... brah! You forgot the triple water bottle mount inside the front triangle.

|

12/26/2018 2:10 PM

I want to see internet engineers be more condescending to the actual people who make bikes. It's the best...

In all seriousness improving tire casings. Lighter tires with strong sidewalls (i.e DH casing strength/durability) would be awesome.

|

12/26/2018 2:16 PM

spech wrote:

How about chainstays that get longer as you size up? Nothing less than 445 mm on large 29ers

shutter2ride wrote:

I think Norco does that.

Want long? 455ish mm on my Banshee Prime using their 'long' drop-outs.

AFAIK Norco moves the BB forwards on larger sizes. Makes the chainstays longer, makes the seat tube angle even slacker. And doesn't change the distance between the seat and rear axle, which is the driving factor for the uphill abilities of a bike (sit too far rearwards and the bike will want to do wheelies and the like).

Wrong way IMO, completely the wrong way.

|

12/26/2018 2:30 PM

Erotomania90 wrote:

I don’t think current derailleur drivetrains have killed the gearbox at all. The industry just needs to support them more, and then the designs will improve. Gear range has no appeal to me, I could(and still may) go back to a 11-36 1x10spd and be just fine. The gearbox appeals to me because all that drivetrain weight is where it should be. I can’t stand how massive the cassettes have become and the derailleur might as well be kickstand.

Not all places can be ridden with an 11-36 1x10. I've been through this debate many times. I'm running Eagle with 32T in the front on a 27 incher and i wouldn't mind a 30T in the front at times. Granted, i like to have a higher cadence, but believe me, i'm not lacking any shape or speed (i can do 700 vertical ascent meters when riding for over an hour with stabs of over 800 or even 900 possible in shots of about half an hour). Sometimes the terrain is just too steep to be able to ride it out at 32-36 or the like.

And no, i don't want to walk. I bought a bike, if i wanted to walk up the hill, i'd do it without a bike (i do hike-a-bikes, but only when there's no other option to access the sweet stuff. And i carry the bike, not push).

As for the gearboxes, there isn't much to support. You have your Pinion, which is far from a widely supported product, so don't expect to see it on any major brands (up to now, Nicolai has embraced it, Zerode has used it and Alutech has dropped it). Effigear is even worse in this regard with only Cavaliere and Nicolai using it at some point (not sure about the satus of Cavaliere, Nicolai has dropped it).

Plus, Pinion has a specific 'offloading' quirk for you to be able to shift (you do get used to it, but it's still a barrier to mass adoption), all the people that tried it say you do notice the added drag and it is still heavier at the end of the day (yes yes, i know, it's more centered, better protected, less maintenance, etc.). Effigear requires the use of a freehub-less rear hub and a concetric single-pivot swingarm design, since the rear wheel drives the gearbox for you to be able to shift - if you want to shift to an easier gear (if i understood them correctly), you would have to backpedal to release the internal freehub when using a freehub hub in the rear. With a fixed hub, you only release the pedals and rely on the rear wheel to turn the gearbox enough to release the internal freehub.

So it's a clear catch-22. There aren't enough good gearboxes for the major brands to use them, and because nobody uses them, there is no support. Plus different standards, when you have all the gear in the world available for current drivetrains, etc.

I stand by my opinion that Sram and Shimano have engineered the gearbox out of existence on MTBs.

|

12/26/2018 2:35 PM

Erwan_Ghesquiere wrote:

One thing that would actually be good would be dropper seatpost that drops without having to seat on it.

Any Electronic stuff: gimmicks
Longer travel seatpost: gimmicks
Gearbox: i would love it but I can't see a big enough breaktrough happening within a year to make them light/efficient/affordable.
Geo: pretty dialed for average size people which I am.

Primoz wrote:

So you basically want a gimmick (auto-dropper post), but don't want a gimmick?

I don't see any actual benefit on the trail to Di2 or hydro/cable/electric seatpost actuation. In enduro racing situation (blind racing in France) i can see massive advantage to have a seatpost retracting whitout having to seat on it, not that interesting if not racing, after all the dropper was developped for racing, to go on a spin with your buds adjusting a seatpost manually is not that much of an issue. And 150mm seatposts are way enough for people up to 1m85/90 with 175mm probably good up to 2m and above so if you need more you clearly don't know how to setup your bike properly for DH and may want to also check your technique. Nobody on the DH circuit rides with their seats slammed down, most of the time the saddle is just above the top of the knee joint.

|

12/26/2018 3:20 PM

Erotomania90 wrote:

I don’t think current derailleur drivetrains have killed the gearbox at all. The industry just needs to support them more, and then the designs will improve. Gear range has no appeal to me, I could(and still may) go back to a 11-36 1x10spd and be just fine. The gearbox appeals to me because all that drivetrain weight is where it should be. I can’t stand how massive the cassettes have become and the derailleur might as well be kickstand.

Primoz wrote:

Not all places can be ridden with an 11-36 1x10. I've been through this debate many times. I'm running Eagle with 32T in the front on a 27 incher and i wouldn't mind a 30T in the front at times. Granted, i like to have a higher cadence, but believe me, i'm not lacking any shape or speed (i can do 700 vertical ascent meters when riding for over an hour with stabs of over 800 or even 900 possible in shots of about half an hour). Sometimes the terrain is just too steep to be able to ride it out at 32-36 or the like.

And no, i don't want to walk. I bought a bike, if i wanted to walk up the hill, i'd do it without a bike (i do hike-a-bikes, but only when there's no other option to access the sweet stuff. And i carry the bike, not push).

As for the gearboxes, there isn't much to support. You have your Pinion, which is far from a widely supported product, so don't expect to see it on any major brands (up to now, Nicolai has embraced it, Zerode has used it and Alutech has dropped it). Effigear is even worse in this regard with only Cavaliere and Nicolai using it at some point (not sure about the satus of Cavaliere, Nicolai has dropped it).

Plus, Pinion has a specific 'offloading' quirk for you to be able to shift (you do get used to it, but it's still a barrier to mass adoption), all the people that tried it say you do notice the added drag and it is still heavier at the end of the day (yes yes, i know, it's more centered, better protected, less maintenance, etc.). Effigear requires the use of a freehub-less rear hub and a concetric single-pivot swingarm design, since the rear wheel drives the gearbox for you to be able to shift - if you want to shift to an easier gear (if i understood them correctly), you would have to backpedal to release the internal freehub when using a freehub hub in the rear. With a fixed hub, you only release the pedals and rely on the rear wheel to turn the gearbox enough to release the internal freehub.

So it's a clear catch-22. There aren't enough good gearboxes for the major brands to use them, and because nobody uses them, there is no support. Plus different standards, when you have all the gear in the world available for current drivetrains, etc.

I stand by my opinion that Sram and Shimano have engineered the gearbox out of existence on MTBs.

Sram and Shimano aren’t engineering much, just modifying 70+ yr old technology and consuming the market. We are talking 2020 here, I think it’s time we had a drivetrain designed this century.

|

12/26/2018 3:24 PM

3D printed one piece frames.

|

#lancetigerblood

12/26/2018 4:42 PM

I'd like to see aggressive endure & trail bike tires get lighter & stronger with less rolling resistance but still have good sidewall support and some puncture protection.

|

12/26/2018 4:52 PM

I'd like to see manufacturers and enduro/DH race teams experiment with a 29" front tire and a 27.5" or even 26" rear tire.

The Foes Mixer Enduro bike has been around for a while and the geo is also a bit dated. Would love to see someone proto a mixed wheelsize bike with contemporary geometry.

|

12/26/2018 7:19 PM

Sounds like most of you could just buy a geometron and be good?

|

12/27/2018 12:47 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/27/2018 12:54 AM

MPH24 wrote:

I want to see internet engineers be more condescending to the actual people who make bikes. It's the best...

In all seriousness improving tire casings. Lighter tires with strong sidewalls (i.e DH casing strength/durability) would be awesome.

LOL you think the people who make bikes are the creme de la creme of the engineering world?!?!?! HAHAHAHA - I pretty much only respect dave weagle and allen millyard as far as engineers within the bike industry. Oh and in case you didn't know, Allen Millyard is literally just a british bloke in a shed with a kid that used to race DH. Dude got sick of his kid breaking derailleurs and literally welded up 4 of the most innovative bicycles in the last 20 years because he was bored. AND he used suspension from a flipping tank that he got from his neighbor. I'll stop being condescending when i see some actual progress rather than endless tweaking of elements that don't matter. Until then, i will continue thinking of bike industry engineers as the C- engineering students that they are. I bet the people engineering the seat rails or the flipping door locks on a ford focus are paid better and have far more talent than the engineers designing bikes. I think we're lucky when we get someone like DW who could probably make faaaaar more money designing for a different industry but loves bikes enough to take a significant pay cut and deal with people like me complaining about everything.

Let me temper my general anger at current industry engineers with some realism and some nostalgia though. I have loved DH my whole life. I followed each bike development in the late 90s and early 2000s with the type of anticipation usually reserved for a kid with severe ADD waiting for the school bell to ring. I miss when the bike industry would just try crazy stuff. Now there is a formula. You get a basic four-bar suspension system, you put it on a bike with generic angles and then you package it as something new like "giddy-up" with clever marketing. Plenty of companies have found success with that model. Most of their bikes ride awesome. BUT - Where did the creativity of the past go? Why can't we try to make bikes more awesome? That's what I want. I want industry engineers to stop treading water and try to think outside the box. Look at all the current high-pivot stuff that people are flipping out about. Remember Sunn and Balfa? It's been done before. To great effectiveness I might add. The current high-pivot craze is just a repackaging of an old idea. How about more new ideas? The past 10 years of "incremental improvements" have just really worn down my faith and optimism in the collective creative talent of the industry. Also I just snapped my carbon cranks so I'm a little peeved at everything bike related.

At the end of the day - we are all here on Vital because we love bikes. And we're all here commenting on this thread because some small part of us hopes that industry people are listening to our ideas and will work to make those ideas a reality. And I'm here to write angry manifestos about the lack of real progress in the hope that industry insiders will be inspired to suck less. I recognize that my comments are likely detrimental to my cause. I do not care.

|

12/27/2018 1:02 AM

stiingya wrote:

Sounds like most of you could just buy a geometron and be good?

No water bottle support. Even though i mostly ride with a backpack, it has become a big no for me in the past year. It's much quicker to do a one hour spin with a water bottle, quicker preparation wise.

Though on an XL a water bottle cage could be mounted towards the front of the triangle on the underside of the top tube. Maybe.

|

12/27/2018 1:14 AM

Erotomania90 wrote:

Sram and Shimano aren’t engineering much, just modifying 70+ yr old technology and consuming the market. We are talking 2020 here, I think it’s time we had a drivetrain designed this century.

Compare a 10 year old drivetrain to either Eagle or the new XTR. If that is not engineering, either i don't know what is or you don't know what is. With the danger of sounding like a smartass, i'm betting on the second. But i have a good reason to do that.

I've seen the effects of a clean sheet design in automotive industry far too many times. The effects being all the issues that are brought up. Automotive industry learns A LOT from the aerospace industry, where the margin for error is MUCH smaller, things just have to work and be light and strong at the same time, much more so than with cars.

Both industries are some of the toughest industries to make good products in due to the demands the products are placed under - the loads, their undetermined nature, the product lifecycles and the environments (temperature ranges from -40°C to 80+°C for most parts of a car with the upper limit going well over 100°C for engine bay components, corrosive fluids covering them, humidity being present, massive vibration loads, etc.) these products need to work in with all their complexities.

So, to cap it off with the point i'm trying to make, you don't do clean sheet designs. You don't do massive changes. You don't do multiple changes without testing, because that throws you in the dark, knowledge wise, and brings issues while testing the components. You iterate with small steps, because that gives you a successful development process. Sure, it locks you out of the groundbreaking new inventions and big gains most of the times, but those, when you do go for them (well, you still have to do big changes now and then), usually bring with them a set of problems, that take time and money to get fixed.

Look at electric cars, why do you think the big brands make 'shitty electric cars that can't compete wit Tesla'? Because they stuffed an unknown (electric drivetrain) into a known quantity (a well developed hatchback). Then they made another change (custom chassis) on a small, cheap car (ala Volt/Bolt or i3), that can still be sold for profit. When you know what you're doing, that's when you go for the big stuff (Porsche Taycan and the like). Tesla went for the big, juicy apple right from the start. How well is that going for them (the internet is full of reports of quality issues, while you can hear some engineering horror stories if you're in the know enough).

Modern drivetrains are engineered plenty enough. Modifying (and testing those modifications) IS the essence of engineering.

|

12/27/2018 1:22 AM

Erwan_Ghesquiere wrote:

I don't see any actual benefit on the trail to Di2 or hydro/cable/electric seatpost actuation. In enduro racing situation (blind racing in France) i can see massive advantage to have a seatpost retracting whitout having to seat on it, not that interesting if not racing, after all the dropper was developped for racing, to go on a spin with your buds adjusting a seatpost manually is not that much of an issue. And 150mm seatposts are way enough for people up to 1m85/90 with 175mm probably good up to 2m and above so if you need more you clearly don't know how to setup your bike properly for DH and may want to also check your technique. Nobody on the DH circuit rides with their seats slammed down, most of the time the saddle is just above the top of the knee joint.

Wow, quite a few assumptions here.

I don't see the point in Di2 actuation with anything. Mechanics work plenty fine the way we have it now. The thing is i can hardly see a both-way-actuated seatpost without some electric power for that. I haven't given it enough thought though, but you need some energy for things to move. With seatposts, you compress an airspring with your weight. The thing moving up and down willy nilly would make for a very nice perpetuum mobile, in essence.

I might be wrong and some way could be made for the post to be mechanically operated both ways and i'm happy to eat my hat in that case. But i'll wait and see what happens.

As for other points, no, dropper posts aren't usable only in racing, i'd say it's actually the other way around more or less. With racing less weight is more of a benefit than with touristic riding. And stages are, more or less, only down with transfers mostly up. There's less of up-and-down and transfers during stages, where a dropper post is most useful. But who cares, droppers are awesome. And waiting for that dud that doesn't have one is a PITA, so no, it is that much of an issue, since we all use them nowadays.

As for seat height, when i had a manually operated dropper post (well... a seatpost and a quickrelease), id ropped it by about 10 cm. Just so i got my knee over the seat. I'm now running a 125 mm seatpost and i've come to the conclusion in the past half a year, since my cornering improved, that it's not enough. I can't wait to get on a 170 mm seatpost. I'm at 190 cm BTW.

And yeah, i do agree slamming the seat all the way down is not the best idea. But still, with a 125 mm dropper, i don't have the space to quickly change leaning sides on the bike without going into the corner with my crankarms horizontally (to give me enough space over the seat), which is not optimal. You want the outer foot to be in the low position. With a seat that's too high it's hard to quickly change feet positions in quick consecutive corners.

|

12/27/2018 5:03 AM

Superj07 wrote:

I would also like longer travel dropper posts. I run a size large with 455 mm reach which feels nice. The seatube is 470 and I worked out I could run a 230 mm dropper comfortably. All 200mm posts are expensive but would make a massive difference to some riders.

I have 2 bikes with 470 and 477mm of reach, and yes seat tubes in these sizes need to be shorter. I'm5'9" and 1980s seat tube lengths make it impossible to size up with many brands.

|

12/27/2018 5:24 AM

I want to see steeper STAs, and shorter seat tubes in small to larger frames. At 5'9" 470 to 480mm of reach seems very good, but why do most makers have too much seat tube in these "medium" sizes. 40mm seat tube diameter should be the standard. Better tires. Don't care for electronic shifting or gear boxes, my worn out XT 11 speed still bangs off shifts reliably every time. Suspension with all the adjustability, at lower price points.

|