2020 Bike Wants

Related:
Create New Tag

12/27/2018 8:34 AM

chup29 wrote:

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.

I used to work as a frame assembler at a very well thought of bike manufacturer. I quit in disgust and dismay when a new bike design came through that looked like it came from someones APPLICATION to engineering school.

|

12/27/2018 10:08 AM

Why are ebikes with gearboxes not a thing? It seems like a match made in heaven.

|

12/27/2018 11:41 AM

Verbl Kint wrote:

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.

http://www.ns-bikes.com/nerd-hd,385,pl.html

|

12/27/2018 12:37 PM

Verbl Kint wrote:

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.

There's a proper mullet for you! 180 in the back and 160 in the front...

|

12/27/2018 1:38 PM

Big Bird wrote:

I used to work as a frame assembler at a very well thought of bike manufacturer. I quit in disgust and dismay when a new bike design came through that looked like it came from someones APPLICATION to engineering school.

I shudder at the thought that the whole cycling industry is a glorified wild west in regards to engineering standards (compared to automotive and aerospace industries). I really really hope i'm wrong.

|

12/27/2018 1:44 PM

Sonofbovril2 wrote:

Why are ebikes with gearboxes not a thing? It seems like a match made in heaven.

I can't for the life of me figure out why noone has bought out Pinion, put an electric motor into the (enlarged) casing to drive the output shaft, add electronic shifting and call it a day. You have the mounting to the frame already standardised (more or less), so you just hang the electric motor off that as well, figure out the battery placement and you're done. You have a single gear chain-wise, so you can use half-link chains to carry all the torque.

Yet Pinion advertises in-hub motors as their electric solutions (admittedly, this is for commuter bikes).

I would really like to try out a Pinion bike. The Pinkbike review of the Tanihwa said that if you want a gearbox, don't go for that bike as the gearbox is not that refined. Nevertheless i think the 1x12 drivetrain is here to stay (where it will go from here i do not know). But the Pinion just looks like a match made in heaven for an electric drivetrain.

Oh, Continental (the tyre guys, who make only ~30 % of their business with tyres, the rest is done as an automotive systems supplier) bought out Nuvinci and use the CVT system in their commuter e-bike system.

|

12/27/2018 3:10 PM

One more:

Dropper-posts with forward offset to make up for crappy/slack STA

|

12/27/2018 8:53 PM

deserat wrote:

Yes, shorter seat tubes. Let people decide what size they want based on reach and stack and not be limited by the seat mast. I seriously don't understand why some companies don't get this.

Primoz wrote:

Well, as someone who has never had an issue with not being able to get the seat low enough (i'm currently running over 200 mm of seatpost extension on a 480 mm frame) i, on the other hand, don't get why companies can't make proper seat tubes angle wise. And don't see an issue with the length of the seat tubes (seeing i'm running my 125/380 mm Reverb overextended).

Everybody has their own gripe and niggle. Bikes are being designed a few years in advance, when 200 mm seat posts aren't as widely available compared to the release date. And it's hard to deviate from the general 'population' of bikes. Look at how the Stumpjumper EVO is viewed like. I'm not in the least surprised they didn't make a carbon version of it.


Carbon Evo on the way next spring apparently.

At 174cm and even inseam/torso the S2 size will be perfection for me. Well apart from the inevitable racist cable routing that all bikes seem to be adopting.

|

12/27/2018 11:26 PM

Jdasco wrote:

One more:

Dropper-posts with forward offset to make up for crappy/slack STA

Just flip your post around?

|

12/28/2018 12:37 AM

Jdasco wrote:

One more:

Dropper-posts with forward offset to make up for crappy/slack STA

That will give you a too short cockpit length, so you'd have to lengthen the stem to 90s XC lengths to have a proper fit.

A forward offset post is a bandaid solution to a frame related issue. That needs to be fixed.

|

12/28/2018 2:36 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/28/2018 2:51 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.

Primoz wrote:

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!

Hi Primoz,

I completely agree with you about aluminum, I even consider steel as a frame material for my next rig!

But I'm not sure that increasing reach alone w/o increasing CS lenght does put your weight forward. I would quite think the opposite indeed, since the bottom half of your body (the heaviest part of it) is still quite at the same distance of the rear wheel (above the BB within a few centimeter), while being significantly further from the front wheel. Your shoulders and upper body are indeed stretched further but they will have to put much more force to give the bar enough charge in order to avoid the front wheel from wandering, wich is a theme that I've noticed on some recent reviews.
It requires a very active and strong riding style that suits skilled and pro riders but detriment in my eyes the avergae rider. IMHO Lengthening CS would greatly help to resolve this issue by balancing rider's weight more equally again.

Although I'm not an engineer and don't own an armchair so I may be completely off. Plus it's not the topic of this thread.



|

12/28/2018 2:44 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/28/2018 2:48 AM

Primoz wrote:

That will give you a too short cockpit length, so you'd have to lengthen the stem to 90s XC lengths to have a proper fit.

A forward offset post is a bandaid solution to a frame related issue. That needs to be fixed.

My current bike has a 460mm reach, wich is good enough for me considering I'm 178cm, but the SA is 74. Wich feels slack at 30% sag on steep climbs, even with my saddle slammed forward (it helped though). Guess it's what you get when suddenly "reach" is raging all over the internet (I'd say between 2014-2017) and any bike manufacturer had to make it longer ASAP for the nex MY without giving it much thoughts.

Nowadays SA have been corrected but you still have 3-4 years of bikes like mine who would greatly benefit from small tricks like this.

|

12/28/2018 5:25 AM

Jdasco wrote:

One more:

Dropper-posts with forward offset to make up for crappy/slack STA

Primoz wrote:

That will give you a too short cockpit length, so you'd have to lengthen the stem to 90s XC lengths to have a proper fit.

A forward offset post is a bandaid solution to a frame related issue. That needs to be fixed.

Jdasco wrote:

My current bike has a 460mm reach, wich is good enough for me considering I'm 178cm, but the SA is 74. Wich feels slack at 30% sag on steep climbs, even with my saddle slammed forward (it helped though). Guess it's what you get when suddenly "reach" is raging all over the internet (I'd say between 2014-2017) and any bike manufacturer had to make it longer ASAP for the nex MY without giving it much thoughts.

Nowadays SA have been corrected but you still have 3-4 years of bikes like mine who would greatly benefit from small tricks like this.

Honestly, try 25% sag.

|

12/28/2018 3:02 PM

Jdasco wrote:

Hi Primoz,

I completely agree with you about aluminum, I even consider steel as a frame material for my next rig!

But I'm not sure that increasing reach alone w/o increasing CS lenght does put your weight forward. I would quite think the opposite indeed, since the bottom half of your body (the heaviest part of it) is still quite at the same distance of the rear wheel (above the BB within a few centimeter), while being significantly further from the front wheel. Your shoulders and upper body are indeed stretched further but they will have to put much more force to give the bar enough charge in order to avoid the front wheel from wandering, wich is a theme that I've noticed on some recent reviews.
It requires a very active and strong riding style that suits skilled and pro riders but detriment in my eyes the avergae rider. IMHO Lengthening CS would greatly help to resolve this issue by balancing rider's weight more equally again.

Although I'm not an engineer and don't own an armchair so I may be completely off. Plus it's not the topic of this thread.



A longer reach needs to be balanced out with a much steeper seat tube angle. With a tall rider, this moves the seat forwards by about 5 cm or more. You can easily keep short chainstays and still achieve a much more forwards biased CoG. Granted, your front axle will be moved forwards as well, but still, the weight distribution wont be affected as much as it might seem. That's the key here.

A steep seat tube angle (78°-ish) with 420 mm ish chainstays on an almost 1300 mm wheelbase would give you a better distribution (more weight on the front) than a large 2015 Giant Reign for the same rider (who would, at 190 cm, need an XL frame - me for example).

Plus i still think the rear axle should be as close as possible to the rear wheel for your feet to drive the rear better. Just like you have your hands relatively close to the front axle. You don't steer the rear through the handlebars and you don't steer the front with your feet (much).

|

12/28/2018 3:06 PM

LLLLL wrote:

Honestly, try 25% sag.

For jdasco:
Yep, like i said a few times, people are going ballistic over reach without even knowing what a long reach means or what causes it on the really modern (think Pole) bikes.

With the new RAD system, that had an article on Pinkbike, it's even worse i'd say. Another measurement that completely ignores the seat position.

For LLLLL:
This also might not be a solution. It will be better, angle wise, but you could put your suspension kinematics in a position, where the antisquat value will not be correct for the frame design and you'll induce some pedal bob (or, more likely due to a too high antisquat value, pedal jacking and then bobbing back down once you release the tension on the chain).

Sadly it's another bandaid solution to something that needs to be solved on the system (frame) level.

|

12/28/2018 9:44 PM

Primoz wrote:

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!

Jdasco wrote:

Hi Primoz,

I completely agree with you about aluminum, I even consider steel as a frame material for my next rig!

But I'm not sure that increasing reach alone w/o increasing CS lenght does put your weight forward. I would quite think the opposite indeed, since the bottom half of your body (the heaviest part of it) is still quite at the same distance of the rear wheel (above the BB within a few centimeter), while being significantly further from the front wheel. Your shoulders and upper body are indeed stretched further but they will have to put much more force to give the bar enough charge in order to avoid the front wheel from wandering, wich is a theme that I've noticed on some recent reviews.
It requires a very active and strong riding style that suits skilled and pro riders but detriment in my eyes the avergae rider. IMHO Lengthening CS would greatly help to resolve this issue by balancing rider's weight more equally again.

Although I'm not an engineer and don't own an armchair so I may be completely off. Plus it's not the topic of this thread.



Primoz wrote:

A longer reach needs to be balanced out with a much steeper seat tube angle. With a tall rider, this moves the seat forwards by about 5 cm or more. You can easily keep short chainstays and still achieve a much more forwards biased CoG. Granted, your front axle will be moved forwards as well, but still, the weight distribution wont be affected as much as it might seem. That's the key here.

A steep seat tube angle (78°-ish) with 420 mm ish chainstays on an almost 1300 mm wheelbase would give you a better distribution (more weight on the front) than a large 2015 Giant Reign for the same rider (who would, at 190 cm, need an XL frame - me for example).

Plus i still think the rear axle should be as close as possible to the rear wheel for your feet to drive the rear better. Just like you have your hands relatively close to the front axle. You don't steer the rear through the handlebars and you don't steer the front with your feet (much).

What does SA have to do with weight distribution?

|

12/29/2018 10:00 AM
Edited Date/Time: 12/29/2018 10:02 AM

JCL wrote:

What does SA have to do with weight distribution?

Almost everything? This is mostly in connection with XL frames and tall guys (and girls!). A steeper seat tube angle moves the seat forwards, which means the CoG of the rider is moved forwards. So more towards the front axle, which loads it more.

For guys between sizes M and L and either side of that border the seat angle is not an issue, since the advertised effective seat angle is mostly the angle they ride at, since the seat height is around the stack height (where the seat tube angle is then measured). For XL guys the seat is 20 cm higher up, which makes quite a difference when the actual angle of the tube is on the order of 70°.

|

12/30/2018 1:33 PM

chup29 wrote:

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.

Big Bird wrote:

I used to work as a frame assembler at a very well thought of bike manufacturer. I quit in disgust and dismay when a new bike design came through that looked like it came from someones APPLICATION to engineering school.

Primoz wrote:

I shudder at the thought that the whole cycling industry is a glorified wild west in regards to engineering standards (compared to automotive and aerospace industries). I really really hope i'm wrong.

You missed the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags off...

The cycle industry is a joke, I was told by specialized that the reason my frame bearings wear out is that I ride in poor conditions for a lot of the year (UK). Nothing at all to do with their shit quality bearings and the piss poor sealing solution they've used.

The number of manufacturers that omit to have a drain hole in the bb is hilarious, it will fill up with water and kill the bb and dropper post.

Sram must specifically ask for shit quality bearings, jockey wheels, gxp bbs. Will add the exploding eagle deraileurs in their for an example of a lack of real world testing and validation.

Rebuilt a brand new Ibis mojo recently, someone has secured the head tube badge with self tapping screws, nice bit of delamination. What's wrong with 3m/loctite tape? Ah, you could be bothered to make the head tube and head tube badge fit properly...

Cycling industry is great at putting sticking plasters over problems, rather than delivering a product which is actually fit for purpose (properly designed, tested, validated).

The recent bible of bike tests and the pink bike Whistler review shows that there are a lot of expensive lemons out there. It's also interesting to see there is a divide between what the requirements of the US, EU and UK, all very different styles of riding.

Being a mechanical engineer, the Nicolai is currently top of the list as it ticks a lot of boxes:
-Adjustable
-proper bearings (including the shock)
-no internal cable routing (it adds weight, unless it's done properly it's annoying)
-Long chainstays!

|

12/30/2018 4:03 PM
Edited Date/Time: 12/30/2018 4:18 PM

Sir HC wrote:

You missed the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags off...

The cycle industry is a joke, I was told by specialized that the reason my frame bearings wear out is that I ride in poor conditions for a lot of the year (UK). Nothing at all to do with their shit quality bearings and the piss poor sealing solution they've used.

The number of manufacturers that omit to have a drain hole in the bb is hilarious, it will fill up with water and kill the bb and dropper post.

Sram must specifically ask for shit quality bearings, jockey wheels, gxp bbs. Will add the exploding eagle deraileurs in their for an example of a lack of real world testing and validation.

Rebuilt a brand new Ibis mojo recently, someone has secured the head tube badge with self tapping screws, nice bit of delamination. What's wrong with 3m/loctite tape? Ah, you could be bothered to make the head tube and head tube badge fit properly...

Cycling industry is great at putting sticking plasters over problems, rather than delivering a product which is actually fit for purpose (properly designed, tested, validated).

The recent bible of bike tests and the pink bike Whistler review shows that there are a lot of expensive lemons out there. It's also interesting to see there is a divide between what the requirements of the US, EU and UK, all very different styles of riding.

Being a mechanical engineer, the Nicolai is currently top of the list as it ticks a lot of boxes:
-Adjustable
-proper bearings (including the shock)
-no internal cable routing (it adds weight, unless it's done properly it's annoying)
-Long chainstays!

Nicolai used to be friendly with a small magazine that my friend ran, so I knew the guys. I saw one of the engineers at Sea Otter trying to sell one of their first gear box bikes. He had me take a quick test ride on it to demonstrate to the lady that good riders liked their bikes. And it was THE worst pedaling bike that I have EVER thrown a leg over. Just garbage even on flat ground. I told them so and seem to have made a life long enemy. I hope they're hiring better mechanical engineers now.

I guess since this is bike wants, so as not to be accused of posting in the wrong post, I should say...

I want for Nicolai to have previously hired some new competent mechanical engineers.

|

12/31/2018 2:28 AM

Regarding GXP bearings, i'm running a pressfit GXP BB on my bike since new, so 3 and a half seasons, roughly 300.000 vertical meters. Not a single problem. I've also seen comments that the GXP bearing system is one of the best out there since the difference between the BB bore and the spindle is so large, it can be sealed well. And that achieving that with dub might not be easy.

As for jockey wheels, jezus christ what's wrong with them? I opened them up, disassembled them, covered them with anti-corrosive (Krown) to at least remove some rust, cleaned them up, filled them up with grease and two months later, they were dry and dirty. And we're talking about half a year old GX Eagle derailleur. No comment on the exploding part, mine works fine to be honest, it's actually not even finicky or anything, it really works. I even bashed it into a concrete block about a month ago and it's still shifting without issues without touching any of the adjusters.

More so than hole in the BB i'd like to see drain holes in shock mounts. Giant has made the same mistake with the current Reign as with the last one, there's a bathtub under the shock mount for water to collect, where it's held in by the shock bolt bearings, which rotate only as much as the shock pivots forwards on the bottom mount. So, basically, not at all. It's not a surprise they get seized up the first.

As for Nicolai, like i mentioned, it doesn't have a bottle cage mount. And regarding proper bearings, i think a lot could be done with grease ports. On pivots and on pedals as well. Just put a nipple on it and pack it with fresh grease from the inside. The bearings should be mounted into the frame instead of the rocker/chainstay/etc., the chainstay pivot of a horst-link bike can use two bearings either side to be greasable from the middle, etc. It might be hard to make all the pivot locations greasable like that, but at least half of them would be a progress.

|

12/31/2018 9:53 PM

Primoz wrote:

A longer reach needs to be balanced out with a much steeper seat tube angle. With a tall rider, this moves the seat forwards by about 5 cm or more. You can easily keep short chainstays and still achieve a much more forwards biased CoG. Granted, your front axle will be moved forwards as well, but still, the weight distribution wont be affected as much as it might seem. That's the key here.

A steep seat tube angle (78°-ish) with 420 mm ish chainstays on an almost 1300 mm wheelbase would give you a better distribution (more weight on the front) than a large 2015 Giant Reign for the same rider (who would, at 190 cm, need an XL frame - me for example).

Plus i still think the rear axle should be as close as possible to the rear wheel for your feet to drive the rear better. Just like you have your hands relatively close to the front axle. You don't steer the rear through the handlebars and you don't steer the front with your feet (much).

JCL wrote:

What does SA have to do with weight distribution?

Primoz wrote:

Almost everything? This is mostly in connection with XL frames and tall guys (and girls!). A steeper seat tube angle moves the seat forwards, which means the CoG of the rider is moved forwards. So more towards the front axle, which loads it more.

For guys between sizes M and L and either side of that border the seat angle is not an issue, since the advertised effective seat angle is mostly the angle they ride at, since the seat height is around the stack height (where the seat tube angle is then measured). For XL guys the seat is 20 cm higher up, which makes quite a difference when the actual angle of the tube is on the order of 70°.

Oh seated weight distribution. Apologies, I thought you guys were talking about DH handling.

|

1/1/2019 7:07 AM
Edited Date/Time: 1/1/2019 7:43 AM

No. While it is important, i think seated fit of a bike that gets pedalled a lot is more important. So anything enduro and down needs to fit properly seated.

|

1/1/2019 6:44 PM

Primoz wrote:

No. While it is important, i think seated fit of a bike that gets pedalled a lot is more important. So anything enduro and down needs to fit properly seated.

Well I completely disagree with that unless you're racing XCO/Marathon.

|

1/2/2019 12:04 AM

Primoz wrote:

No. While it is important, i think seated fit of a bike that gets pedalled a lot is more important. So anything enduro and down needs to fit properly seated.

JCL wrote:

Well I completely disagree with that unless you're racing XCO/Marathon.

Unless you are shuttling, you should be properly seated on an enduro bike, as you spend most of your TIME pedalling uphill when enduroing.

|

1/2/2019 3:59 AM

JCL wrote:

What does SA have to do with weight distribution?

hahahahaha... a lot of NOTHING when going downhill !!! you got it man!

|

1/2/2019 7:55 AM

Superj07 wrote:

Hey,
Thought I would start a thread where we discuss hopes and dreams for 2020 bike models.
I will start with an updated fuel ex. More aggressive and steeper seat angle.
What is everyone else's wishes?

I'll second that I'd like to see a new Fuel ex with a steeper seat tube angle with a slightly shorter seat tube to fit droppers over 150mm. I'm not so sure the bike needs to be much more aggressive though; It gets too close to the Slash if they make it much more aggressive. I suspect they my drop the full-floater like they did with the new Remedy and Slash. Maybe they will lengthen it a little bit in the reach department but like the 2019 Remedy, I bet the fuel doesn't change all that much.

|

1/2/2019 11:36 AM

luisgutrod wrote:

hahahahaha... a lot of NOTHING when going downhill !!! you got it man!

But we are not talking about DH bikes.

|

1/2/2019 11:38 AM

JCL wrote:

Well I completely disagree with that unless you're racing XCO/Marathon.

Cool. But baronKanon got the point of it. I mean, be my guest, suffer 90 % of the time to be 0,1 s faster in the 10 % that don't matter for the 95+ % of the people that don't race on a professional level and live off the racing, i prefer a properly fitting bike when sitting down, pedalling, where i spend the majority of my energy on a bike ride.

I mean i'm weird after all, i do 10 kilometers of asphalt on my typical afternoon ride with my enduro bike to get to the start of the climb and from the end of the descent.

|

1/2/2019 9:24 PM

Primoz wrote:

No. While it is important, i think seated fit of a bike that gets pedalled a lot is more important. So anything enduro and down needs to fit properly seated.

JCL wrote:

Well I completely disagree with that unless you're racing XCO/Marathon.

Primoz wrote:

Cool. But baronKanon got the point of it. I mean, be my guest, suffer 90 % of the time to be 0,1 s faster in the 10 % that don't matter for the 95+ % of the people that don't race on a professional level and live off the racing, i prefer a properly fitting bike when sitting down, pedalling, where i spend the majority of my energy on a bike ride.

I mean i'm weird after all, i do 10 kilometers of asphalt on my typical afternoon ride with my enduro bike to get to the start of the climb and from the end of the descent.

I'm okay with having a compromised climbing bike if I'm not being timed uphill I'd rather have an AM bike that was geared towards the fun side of riding.

I also think that technique and fitness plays such huge part in climbing and most guys are nowhere near as good as they can be.

|

1/3/2019 12:03 AM

Which is exactly why you have to give the people, who would otherwise strain more, every advantage they can get so they get on the descent as fresh and with as much energy they can have. Because that is safer as well.

Plus, who says a properly fitting bike can't be fun on the downs?

|