If we already have talked about this, then never mind. But look at this öhlins shock on Ben walkers bike. [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/05/08/12472/s1200_02DC779F_B574_4B88_BB7B_A2A3377BDF53.jpg[/img]
If we already have talked about this, then never mind. But look at this öhlins shock on Ben walkers bike.
New Saint continues to make appearances on select WC'ers bikes. Release date MUST be close, right?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/05/09/12474/s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_05_09_at_10.52.45_AM.jpg[/img]
New Saint continues to make appearances on select WC'ers bikes. Release date MUST be close, right?
That is what we thought last season when Greg and Luca were running the mechs and gregthe cranks… time will tell I guess
They build and tune all the DVO suspension from scratch in house for your needs. I video called the owner, Jason? who showed me around their workshop and it’s super impressive for only building and servicing one brand. Real nice guy
No update to enduro confirmed by spesh
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/05/09/12479/s1200_279830719_10160976827820579_6858088259534690327_n.jpg[/img]
No update to enduro confirmed by spesh
That’s what they always say months before dropping the new latest and greatest, gotta keep ‘em rolling out the doors
[url=https://www.universalcycles.com/new_products.php]Looks like Universal Cycles already has the new Rockshox shocks up on their website[/url] with some details, no photos though, even though we've all seen them...
If we already have talked about this, then never mind. But look at this öhlins shock on Ben walkers bike. [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/05/08/12472/s1200_02DC779F_B574_4B88_BB7B_A2A3377BDF53.jpg[/img]
If we already have talked about this, then never mind. But look at this öhlins shock on Ben walkers bike.
"Man, it's rough out there on the track today. I either need to add some high speed compression, bump up my fork pressure, add some low speed compression, add a token, pump up my tires, add a front tire insert, raise my bars, or increase the psi in my stem suspension. One or the other, I think."
We all want a more comfortable and controlled ride. To that end, many riders want to add all the suspension: tires, rims, spokes, chassis, stem, bar, grips, gloves. The problem is that not all of it is effective at the same frequency or amplitude, and those that act on the same frequency and amplitude are not always of the same quality.
For example, imagine if you wanted to create a DH set-up. You could take two XC air springs and dampers and just stack them on top of each other, or you could use a single, long air spring and damper. The latter has the potential to be better because you avoid redundant components, don't have to double the valve float, etc. This is an example of systems that work on the same amplitude and frequency, so we choose a single, superior system and extend the travel as desired.
Now, compare the action of the fork and tires. We currently have about 8" of fork travel and 2.5" of tire travel. Alternatively, we could have 10.5" of fork travel and just coat our rims in some rubber lugs, or we could have a rigid fork with a 10.5" tire casing. The former alternative is obviously poor because the nearly zero unsprung mass of the tire handles impacts of high frequency and low amplitude that the fork doesn't handle efficiently. The latter alternative is obviously poor because 10.5" of travel needs damping over most of the stroke. Maybe 7.75" of fork travel and 2.75" tires could be better, or 8.25" of fork travel with 2.25" tires, but the current system is clearly close to ideal and better than the extreme alternatives.
As a final example, consider rotating grips (ex. Rev Grips, or simply squishy ones, like Oury). These act in a direction that's not covered by the fork, tires, or a Neken stem. Adding a grip that increases movement around the axis of the handlebar does something the other options don't do.
So, to get back to the Neken stem: it acts on the same axis as the fork and, with such short travel, the flex, float, and stiction affect a larger fraction of its travel than the fork's travel. The stem is effectively the same as adding a little fork travel, but of lesser quality, requires redundant components, and there's more unsprung mass below it. If the goal is to add a little "soft" suspension to the existing fork travel, it's probably sought because the fork is sticky; for the expense of this stem, a fork manufacturer could improve tolerances and/or use exotic materials in the fork to address friction. Or maybe it's to create a layer of suspension with less inertia that reacts more quickly, in which case a simpler system would likely be the better solution. It's unlikely that stacking a telescoping suspension stem on a telescoping suspension fork will create a superior result unless that scales of travel or mass are enormously disparate - likely beyond the situation on a motorcycle and almost certainly beyond the situation on a mountain bike.
30 years ago, I had the exact same thing.... was called a girvin flexstem
it worked like a normal stem, but had a little skateboard truck bushing in it to give around 1 inch of bar travel. At the time it was pretty revolutionary and worked pretty good.
I remember going to a skateboard shop in the early 90's, buying out all their bushings to figure out which one worked best. I've been puzzling with suspension ever since
Re: Neken stem
Sometimes more is more, sometimes it's not.
We all want a more comfortable and controlled ride. To that end, many riders want to...
Re: Neken stem
Sometimes more is more, sometimes it's not.
We all want a more comfortable and controlled ride. To that end, many riders want to add all the suspension: tires, rims, spokes, chassis, stem, bar, grips, gloves. The problem is that not all of it is effective at the same frequency or amplitude, and those that act on the same frequency and amplitude are not always of the same quality.
For example, imagine if you wanted to create a DH set-up. You could take two XC air springs and dampers and just stack them on top of each other, or you could use a single, long air spring and damper. The latter has the potential to be better because you avoid redundant components, don't have to double the valve float, etc. This is an example of systems that work on the same amplitude and frequency, so we choose a single, superior system and extend the travel as desired.
Now, compare the action of the fork and tires. We currently have about 8" of fork travel and 2.5" of tire travel. Alternatively, we could have 10.5" of fork travel and just coat our rims in some rubber lugs, or we could have a rigid fork with a 10.5" tire casing. The former alternative is obviously poor because the nearly zero unsprung mass of the tire handles impacts of high frequency and low amplitude that the fork doesn't handle efficiently. The latter alternative is obviously poor because 10.5" of travel needs damping over most of the stroke. Maybe 7.75" of fork travel and 2.75" tires could be better, or 8.25" of fork travel with 2.25" tires, but the current system is clearly close to ideal and better than the extreme alternatives.
As a final example, consider rotating grips (ex. Rev Grips, or simply squishy ones, like Oury). These act in a direction that's not covered by the fork, tires, or a Neken stem. Adding a grip that increases movement around the axis of the handlebar does something the other options don't do.
So, to get back to the Neken stem: it acts on the same axis as the fork and, with such short travel, the flex, float, and stiction affect a larger fraction of its travel than the fork's travel. The stem is effectively the same as adding a little fork travel, but of lesser quality, requires redundant components, and there's more unsprung mass below it. If the goal is to add a little "soft" suspension to the existing fork travel, it's probably sought because the fork is sticky; for the expense of this stem, a fork manufacturer could improve tolerances and/or use exotic materials in the fork to address friction. Or maybe it's to create a layer of suspension with less inertia that reacts more quickly, in which case a simpler system would likely be the better solution. It's unlikely that stacking a telescoping suspension stem on a telescoping suspension fork will create a superior result unless that scales of travel or mass are enormously disparate - likely beyond the situation on a motorcycle and almost certainly beyond the situation on a mountain bike.
I think it is reasonable to imagine that this stem, carrying far less weight than the fork, could be tuned such that it could make for a more comfortable ride: reducing peak forces on your hands in a way that a fork can't.
I also think it is clearly a different situation than using two short shocks instead of one long one - In that case both shocks carry identical loads. The stem typically carries far less than half of your body weight, and none of the bike weight.
I'd be very interested to read independent reviews - Seems like it could offer a very different experience over rapid bumps where perhaps a fork might get deeper into its travel - and therefore be stiffer.
I can even imagine improvements in traction, as perhaps this stem could further reduce bucking the rider, smoothing out the loading on the ground/tire.
I think it is reasonable to imagine that this stem, carrying far less weight than the fork, could be tuned such that it could make for...
I think it is reasonable to imagine that this stem, carrying far less weight than the fork, could be tuned such that it could make for a more comfortable ride: reducing peak forces on your hands in a way that a fork can't.
I also think it is clearly a different situation than using two short shocks instead of one long one - In that case both shocks carry identical loads. The stem typically carries far less than half of your body weight, and none of the bike weight.
I'd be very interested to read independent reviews - Seems like it could offer a very different experience over rapid bumps where perhaps a fork might get deeper into its travel - and therefore be stiffer.
I can even imagine improvements in traction, as perhaps this stem could further reduce bucking the rider, smoothing out the loading on the ground/tire.
I could see beneficial uses for the stem in a gravel bike or touring application and maybe at a stretch even marathon racing on MTB where reducing very high frequency small vibrations might add up.
Fun fact, Neken manufactured a batch of MTB handlebars back in 2010 for a local bikeshop, 750mm wide and 22.2mm clamp and something like 20-30mm of rise. Had one back then with spacers to fit on a 31.8 stem.
Contacted the company a few years later, as I wanted one for a project and was hoping they had some, and they did! Also got a tour of a part of the manufacturing floor, awesome guys to talk to. And back then they didn't have plans in the near future to go back to MTB, but I suppose now they do.
Pretty sure this was invented entirely for guys who bought a trust fork and want to double down on degrading their riding experience. Luckily for neken those type of guys ride in packs and have money to spend.
Pretty sure this was invented entirely for guys who bought a trust fork and want to double down on degrading their riding experience. Luckily for neken...
Pretty sure this was invented entirely for guys who bought a trust fork and want to double down on degrading their riding experience. Luckily for neken those type of guys ride in packs and have money to spend.
The 'high frequency' loads experienced by our hands, the chatter, is best dealt with something flexible. This stem will have too much stiction to have any effect for these kinds of loads. What you need is rubber inserts (cue buttercups), flexible bars (OneUp carbon bar...), soft grips, etc.
When it comes to vibrational damping with professional equipment, vibroinsulating foams are used, in the gloves, the grips, etc. Springs could be used as well, by the logic of a tuned mass damper, but that needs to be finely tuned to the application - which frequencies you want to filter out, what the masses of the system are, etc. There is too much variation in cycling world for that to function, even dampers and springs in our forks and shocks often have problems in the bell curves of the gaussian distribution.
have been told globe used to exist in early 2000s, too. i'm not in touch w/ this side of the cycling marketing, so anyone know if they cut it off and are re-launching?
have been told globe used to exist in early 2000s, too. i'm not in touch w/ this side of the cycling marketing, so anyone know if...
have been told globe used to exist in early 2000s, too. i'm not in touch w/ this side of the cycling marketing, so anyone know if they cut it off and are re-launching?
This would be the third go-round for the Globe brand. First launched in the '90s, relaunched in mid '00s.
https://www.facebook.com/NEKEN.eu/photos/a.672128019466263/558764523458…
I love this for you
Sometimes more is more, sometimes it's not.
We all want a more comfortable and controlled ride. To that end, many riders want to add all the suspension: tires, rims, spokes, chassis, stem, bar, grips, gloves. The problem is that not all of it is effective at the same frequency or amplitude, and those that act on the same frequency and amplitude are not always of the same quality.
For example, imagine if you wanted to create a DH set-up. You could take two XC air springs and dampers and just stack them on top of each other, or you could use a single, long air spring and damper. The latter has the potential to be better because you avoid redundant components, don't have to double the valve float, etc. This is an example of systems that work on the same amplitude and frequency, so we choose a single, superior system and extend the travel as desired.
Now, compare the action of the fork and tires. We currently have about 8" of fork travel and 2.5" of tire travel. Alternatively, we could have 10.5" of fork travel and just coat our rims in some rubber lugs, or we could have a rigid fork with a 10.5" tire casing. The former alternative is obviously poor because the nearly zero unsprung mass of the tire handles impacts of high frequency and low amplitude that the fork doesn't handle efficiently. The latter alternative is obviously poor because 10.5" of travel needs damping over most of the stroke. Maybe 7.75" of fork travel and 2.75" tires could be better, or 8.25" of fork travel with 2.25" tires, but the current system is clearly close to ideal and better than the extreme alternatives.
As a final example, consider rotating grips (ex. Rev Grips, or simply squishy ones, like Oury). These act in a direction that's not covered by the fork, tires, or a Neken stem. Adding a grip that increases movement around the axis of the handlebar does something the other options don't do.
So, to get back to the Neken stem: it acts on the same axis as the fork and, with such short travel, the flex, float, and stiction affect a larger fraction of its travel than the fork's travel. The stem is effectively the same as adding a little fork travel, but of lesser quality, requires redundant components, and there's more unsprung mass below it. If the goal is to add a little "soft" suspension to the existing fork travel, it's probably sought because the fork is sticky; for the expense of this stem, a fork manufacturer could improve tolerances and/or use exotic materials in the fork to address friction. Or maybe it's to create a layer of suspension with less inertia that reacts more quickly, in which case a simpler system would likely be the better solution. It's unlikely that stacking a telescoping suspension stem on a telescoping suspension fork will create a superior result unless that scales of travel or mass are enormously disparate - likely beyond the situation on a motorcycle and almost certainly beyond the situation on a mountain bike.
I could not fancy any other utility for this design. Even the turning radius would be so wack, steering lock and all...
it worked like a normal stem, but had a little skateboard truck bushing in it to give around 1 inch of bar travel. At the time it was pretty revolutionary and worked pretty good.
I remember going to a skateboard shop in the early 90's, buying out all their bushings to figure out which one worked best. I've been puzzling with suspension ever since
It's 1987 all over again:
I also think it is clearly a different situation than using two short shocks instead of one long one - In that case both shocks carry identical loads. The stem typically carries far less than half of your body weight, and none of the bike weight.
I'd be very interested to read independent reviews - Seems like it could offer a very different experience over rapid bumps where perhaps a fork might get deeper into its travel - and therefore be stiffer.
I can even imagine improvements in traction, as perhaps this stem could further reduce bucking the rider, smoothing out the loading on the ground/tire.
Contacted the company a few years later, as I wanted one for a project and was hoping they had some, and they did! Also got a tour of a part of the manufacturing floor, awesome guys to talk to. And back then they didn't have plans in the near future to go back to MTB, but I suppose now they do.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23063949/specialized-ebike-utility-b…
When it comes to vibrational damping with professional equipment, vibroinsulating foams are used, in the gloves, the grips, etc. Springs could be used as well, by the logic of a tuned mass damper, but that needs to be finely tuned to the application - which frequencies you want to filter out, what the masses of the system are, etc. There is too much variation in cycling world for that to function, even dampers and springs in our forks and shocks often have problems in the bell curves of the gaussian distribution.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation