The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's...
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's, and Pivot's are quote good value, and have been for quite some time, but also cater to a different trail user in general who have a difference sense of value outside of purchase price. Generally, I imagine Yeti customers or potential Yeti customers are shopping high end Santa Cruz's and Pivot's against Yeti, not Transition vs Yeti. The only issue I have with your argument, is that modern carbon mountain bikes, even Transition's, are comically expensive to begin with (so throw price, reason, or sense out the window), and also, at the end of the day, Yeti's have never been known for being great value in the dollar vs performance, and yet have been growing exponentially in the past 6 years (well before the pandemic). Their average customer assigns a lot value to brand identity, their undeniable performance, storied race history, and less value to overall purchase price. All that being said, I ride by choice, more cost effective alloy frames with nicer parts as it suits my budget and riding style better. At the end of the day, value is subjective, and while I wouldn't cash out $5000 for a frame, I understand why people do.
Weirdly in Australia the Yetis are pretty much the same price as the Transitions.
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's...
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's, and Pivot's are quote good value, and have been for quite some time, but also cater to a different trail user in general who have a difference sense of value outside of purchase price. Generally, I imagine Yeti customers or potential Yeti customers are shopping high end Santa Cruz's and Pivot's against Yeti, not Transition vs Yeti. The only issue I have with your argument, is that modern carbon mountain bikes, even Transition's, are comically expensive to begin with (so throw price, reason, or sense out the window), and also, at the end of the day, Yeti's have never been known for being great value in the dollar vs performance, and yet have been growing exponentially in the past 6 years (well before the pandemic). Their average customer assigns a lot value to brand identity, their undeniable performance, storied race history, and less value to overall purchase price. All that being said, I ride by choice, more cost effective alloy frames with nicer parts as it suits my budget and riding style better. At the end of the day, value is subjective, and while I wouldn't cash out $5000 for a frame, I understand why people do.
Weirdly in Australia the Yetis are pretty much the same price as the Transitions.
Summit Cycles and Empire Cycles have the Australian SB160 pre-order pricing up. Builds begin at $12,990 (GX) and run to $17,290 (AXS). Frame only... $7,790. IDGI.
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's...
The two bikes, while somewhat similar in purpose and travel, are quite different bikes in terms of customer base. Also, Transition's compared to Santa Cruz's, Yeti's, and Pivot's are quote good value, and have been for quite some time, but also cater to a different trail user in general who have a difference sense of value outside of purchase price. Generally, I imagine Yeti customers or potential Yeti customers are shopping high end Santa Cruz's and Pivot's against Yeti, not Transition vs Yeti. The only issue I have with your argument, is that modern carbon mountain bikes, even Transition's, are comically expensive to begin with (so throw price, reason, or sense out the window), and also, at the end of the day, Yeti's have never been known for being great value in the dollar vs performance, and yet have been growing exponentially in the past 6 years (well before the pandemic). Their average customer assigns a lot value to brand identity, their undeniable performance, storied race history, and less value to overall purchase price. All that being said, I ride by choice, more cost effective alloy frames with nicer parts as it suits my budget and riding style better. At the end of the day, value is subjective, and while I wouldn't cash out $5000 for a frame, I understand why people do.
Did I miss any discussion about Williams Racing Products/Trinity and their homage to the Honda RN-01 drivetrain?
Did I miss any discussion about Williams Racing Products/Trinity and their homage to the Honda RN-01 drivetrain?
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess is they keep this open for easier access and to make fast changes if needed, no matter it would get dirty very fast, but when done, it will probably be closed so that it doesn’t collect dust, mud, debris, water, and whatever else you can think of that the trail can throw at it. All in all, pretty neat thinking from Mrs. Williams and the other 2 guys, not just regarding this concept, but the frame as a whole!
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess...
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess is they keep this open for easier access and to make fast changes if needed, no matter it would get dirty very fast, but when done, it will probably be closed so that it doesn’t collect dust, mud, debris, water, and whatever else you can think of that the trail can throw at it. All in all, pretty neat thinking from Mrs. Williams and the other 2 guys, not just regarding this concept, but the frame as a whole!
Last time I checked WRP's instagram the "gearbox" was protected in a fiberglass casing, so that you could actually see what's happening in there. Dunno if that's the final design or if that was made for the crankworx show.
The system is claimed to weight 1.4 kg which is quite light compared to a pinion C3 gearbox. I don't know if that number includes the whole transmission tho.
If any here want to see what the Honda RN01s first gearbox iteration was, check European Patent Application EP 1 366 978 A1, it's date of filing was 20-03-2003. It was described as 'Continuously Variable Transmission For Bicycles'. And that, it certainly was / could be.
It was an incredible thing, using 4 (?) link arms and multiple pivot / center points, the repositioning of those creating various 'strokes' of said links, and arcs, thence into rotation.
Why do it on a bicycle? Well, for real world testing of a (relatively) high torque load at what are very low revs, that you want to be as smooth as possible, well, the Human / Machine interface is pretty bloody demanding of perfection. Any problems, would be so very, very obvious, and destructive of smooth gear changes and power transfer. Honda tried variations of it on Motorcycles.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it may have been similar to what was first used on the 1991 RC250AM Auto, which was used to win the 1992 the All Japan MX Series. Though, the RC250AM also had some elements of what was to become the Seamless Gearboxes used in MotoGP. I think it was also raced at least once in a Japanese end of season International, by the late, great Eric Geboers (RIP) . Jeff Stanton may have done so, too.
It was completely different to the later, infinitely simpler ' sliding cluster and derailleur on shafts ' set up of the later versions. I doubt they could have much of a chance at a patent on that, other than 'detail' sections of the mechanism, as that was being done by others. I can't recall the company (started with 'B', and may have been German, in my dim, Old Bear Brain) that Hayes bought the rights to, around the 2005 / 2006 time frame, but, they did nothing with it , to my recollection.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes...
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
That would be very surprising to me if they changed their suspension platform. Doesn't make any sense, unless they are looking for a more HP/rearward axle path
It would be unexpected if Atherton changed layouts. They could be trying to simplify their bikes: less expensive and faster to make. CWizzle: was the solid rear triangle still constructed from carbon tubes and ti lugs like all their bikes thus far?
Moving to a traditionally manufactured rear triangle (and maybe links too) with their current printed ti/carbon tube system for front triangle (and varying pivot locations to adjust chainstay lengths for different sizes like a lot of companies do) would reduce the number of printed ti parts and thus allow more frames to be made for a given run time of the printer. Printer is probably a bottleneck. But they still have the cool and customizable printed ti/carbon tubes for front triangle so would still be as desirable and cool as they currently are.
It would be unexpected if Atherton changed layouts. They could be trying to simplify their bikes: less expensive and faster to make. CWizzle: was the solid...
It would be unexpected if Atherton changed layouts. They could be trying to simplify their bikes: less expensive and faster to make. CWizzle: was the solid rear triangle still constructed from carbon tubes and ti lugs like all their bikes thus far?
Moving to a traditionally manufactured rear triangle (and maybe links too) with their current printed ti/carbon tube system for front triangle (and varying pivot locations to adjust chainstay lengths for different sizes like a lot of companies do) would reduce the number of printed ti parts and thus allow more frames to be made for a given run time of the printer. Printer is probably a bottleneck. But they still have the cool and customizable printed ti/carbon tubes for front triangle so would still be as desirable and cool as they currently are.
I think the rear triangle was carbon, front triangle was still the lug and tube construction they use on current bikes. Was a fully silver bike also with no branding, pretty sure it had been painted up and it looked very sleek.
It will be interesting to see why they've changed the platform if it makes it to production.
Based on their Instagram post, which look likes their other frames and is tagged AM170, I don't think they are moving away from their current platform. Maybe they were just trying out other designs to compare?
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess...
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess is they keep this open for easier access and to make fast changes if needed, no matter it would get dirty very fast, but when done, it will probably be closed so that it doesn’t collect dust, mud, debris, water, and whatever else you can think of that the trail can throw at it. All in all, pretty neat thinking from Mrs. Williams and the other 2 guys, not just regarding this concept, but the frame as a whole!
Last time I checked WRP's instagram the "gearbox" was protected in a fiberglass casing, so that you could actually see what's happening in there. Dunno if...
Last time I checked WRP's instagram the "gearbox" was protected in a fiberglass casing, so that you could actually see what's happening in there. Dunno if that's the final design or if that was made for the crankworx show.
The system is claimed to weight 1.4 kg which is quite light compared to a pinion C3 gearbox. I don't know if that number includes the whole transmission tho.
In one of their IG posts they talk about debating whether to have it visible. They decided to use clear lexan since they’re not trying to hide anything.
If any here want to see what the Honda RN01s first gearbox iteration was, check European Patent Application EP 1 366 978 A1, it's date of...
If any here want to see what the Honda RN01s first gearbox iteration was, check European Patent Application EP 1 366 978 A1, it's date of filing was 20-03-2003. It was described as 'Continuously Variable Transmission For Bicycles'. And that, it certainly was / could be.
It was an incredible thing, using 4 (?) link arms and multiple pivot / center points, the repositioning of those creating various 'strokes' of said links, and arcs, thence into rotation.
Why do it on a bicycle? Well, for real world testing of a (relatively) high torque load at what are very low revs, that you want to be as smooth as possible, well, the Human / Machine interface is pretty bloody demanding of perfection. Any problems, would be so very, very obvious, and destructive of smooth gear changes and power transfer. Honda tried variations of it on Motorcycles.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it may have been similar to what was first used on the 1991 RC250AM Auto, which was used to win the 1992 the All Japan MX Series. Though, the RC250AM also had some elements of what was to become the Seamless Gearboxes used in MotoGP. I think it was also raced at least once in a Japanese end of season International, by the late, great Eric Geboers (RIP) . Jeff Stanton may have done so, too.
It was completely different to the later, infinitely simpler ' sliding cluster and derailleur on shafts ' set up of the later versions. I doubt they could have much of a chance at a patent on that, other than 'detail' sections of the mechanism, as that was being done by others. I can't recall the company (started with 'B', and may have been German, in my dim, Old Bear Brain) that Hayes bought the rights to, around the 2005 / 2006 time frame, but, they did nothing with it , to my recollection.
Very cool, thanks!
In an interview with Martin Whitely, he talks about the RN-01 being seen by Honda as a thought experiment to encourage more creative problem solving from engineers and designers.
With a company like Honda, there’s so much cool stuff that will never see the marketplace.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes...
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way)...
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
So perhaps cnc lugs instead of printed? You could put out a lot of cheaper bikes with a bank of mills running day and night.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way)...
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
So perhaps cnc lugs instead of printed? You could put out a lot of cheaper bikes with a bank of mills running day and night.
Don’t get me wrong, I love CNC stuff, it usually comes out looking like jewelry. But…..I prefer the idea of additive manufacturing to subtractive manufacturing. Is it cheaper to have a bank of CNC mills to additive machines (honest question) I feel like their are more possibilities with additive manufacturing, but I could be wrong.
Additive manufacturing is still more time and resource consuming, and as a novel technology, the cost of machinery will be more expensive. Also, Atherton are using titanium as the material for additive manufacturing, which means high material cost. AM has good flexibility for customization and complex internal structures, where CNC needs to be programmed more intensively with tool paths etc. and is also limited by access for the tooling. AM has several supports and post production steps, whereas CNC delivers a finished product straight out of the machine.
Summit Cycles and Empire Cycles have the Australian SB160 pre-order pricing up. Builds begin at $12,990 (GX) and run to $17,290 (AXS). Frame only... $7,790. IDGI.
Yeah but the C series Yeti 160 GX is $11,490 AUD and the Spire Carbon GX is $11,699 AUD.
Don’t get me wrong, I love CNC stuff, it usually comes out looking like jewelry. But…..I prefer the idea of additive manufacturing to subtractive manufacturing. Is...
Don’t get me wrong, I love CNC stuff, it usually comes out looking like jewelry. But…..I prefer the idea of additive manufacturing to subtractive manufacturing. Is it cheaper to have a bank of CNC mills to additive machines (honest question) I feel like their are more possibilities with additive manufacturing, but I could be wrong.
I believe that since additive manufacturing is so new, the machines are probably more expensive. Also cnc is much faster and requires less hand work to clean it up after printing. Thus lower price. It seems The Barron got here first...
Summit Cycles and Empire Cycles have the Australian SB160 pre-order pricing up. Builds begin at $12,990 (GX) and run to $17,290 (AXS). Frame only... $7,790. IDGI.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes...
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way)...
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
I hadn't seen this instagram post until now but i'm almost certain the bike I saw was this new more affordable R&D theyre doing as seen in the post. Looked really clean
Additive manufacturing is still more time and resource consuming, and as a novel technology, the cost of machinery will be more expensive. Also, Atherton are using...
Additive manufacturing is still more time and resource consuming, and as a novel technology, the cost of machinery will be more expensive. Also, Atherton are using titanium as the material for additive manufacturing, which means high material cost. AM has good flexibility for customization and complex internal structures, where CNC needs to be programmed more intensively with tool paths etc. and is also limited by access for the tooling. AM has several supports and post production steps, whereas CNC delivers a finished product straight out of the machine.
CNC over additive makes sense for a whole bunch of reasons - off the shelf materials and abundantly available sub contractors spring to mind. But I think the post processing of the additive parts is probably the real killer, most notably the fact that bearing surfaces will have to be CNC’d anyway.
How they work around the double lap joints and internal structures using CNC will be interesting though.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way)...
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
The downtube that you can see a little bit of in the photo looks aluminum. That plus Wizzle saying the bike was "fully silver" makes me think that they're using aluminum lugs bonded to aluminum tubes. I know it could have been painted but maybe it's just polished raw aluminum. Bonding cnc Al lugs to Al tubes is unusual. I mean if you're going to make a fully aluminum bike why not just use mitered/formed tubesets and welding like everyone else? But bonding would eliminate post weld heat treat. I don't have any experience with bonding like this. On the face of it, it seems like it could be faster than welding and wouldn't require as skilled of labor compared to welding. Anyone knowledgeable/experienced with fancy glue that can chime in?
It does seem odd to not just use carbon tubes bonded to Al lugs though. For the total cost of a frame, it doesn't seem like it'd save that much.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way)...
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
The downtube that you can see a little bit of in the photo looks aluminum. That plus Wizzle saying the bike was "fully silver" makes me...
The downtube that you can see a little bit of in the photo looks aluminum. That plus Wizzle saying the bike was "fully silver" makes me think that they're using aluminum lugs bonded to aluminum tubes. I know it could have been painted but maybe it's just polished raw aluminum. Bonding cnc Al lugs to Al tubes is unusual. I mean if you're going to make a fully aluminum bike why not just use mitered/formed tubesets and welding like everyone else? But bonding would eliminate post weld heat treat. I don't have any experience with bonding like this. On the face of it, it seems like it could be faster than welding and wouldn't require as skilled of labor compared to welding. Anyone knowledgeable/experienced with fancy glue that can chime in?
It does seem odd to not just use carbon tubes bonded to Al lugs though. For the total cost of a frame, it doesn't seem like it'd save that much.
I work in Aerospace, we produce a part for helicopters that is essentially the same principle used at Atherton bikes, albeit our brackets are CNC alloy in to carbon tubes. The bonding of the part is exactly the same, I did actually apply at Atherton when they were looking for people.
Bonding of CNC alloy 'lugs' into alloy tubes can also be done, no problem, there are adhesives for all sorts of material bonding out there, 3M being the biggest supplier for all of them. Pretty sure a 3M DP490 after lap shear testing would result in a strong enough bond for the application, but I'm sure they'd be numerous adhesives they manufacture that could work to different strengths.
Did I miss any discussion about Williams Racing Products/Trinity and their homage to the Honda RN-01 drivetrain?
Weirdly in Australia the Yetis are pretty much the same price as the Transitions.
Summit Cycles and Empire Cycles have the Australian SB160 pre-order pricing up. Builds begin at $12,990 (GX) and run to $17,290 (AXS). Frame only... $7,790. IDGI.
Transition also hasn't had the greatest pricing in Canada in years past, though I haven't looked too closely at them for the past year or so.
̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶I̶'̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶s̶i̶g̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶o̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶(̶l̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶X̶X̶1̶ ̶1̶1̶-̶s̶p̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶E̶a̶g̶l̶e̶)̶
Welp, looks like I need to read and not just use my eyes
That’s their prototype drivetrain they designed and keep improving in order to eliminate the rear derailleur and remove some weight from the front wheel. My guess is they keep this open for easier access and to make fast changes if needed, no matter it would get dirty very fast, but when done, it will probably be closed so that it doesn’t collect dust, mud, debris, water, and whatever else you can think of that the trail can throw at it. All in all, pretty neat thinking from Mrs. Williams and the other 2 guys, not just regarding this concept, but the frame as a whole!
Last time I checked WRP's instagram the "gearbox" was protected in a fiberglass casing, so that you could actually see what's happening in there. Dunno if that's the final design or if that was made for the crankworx show.
The system is claimed to weight 1.4 kg which is quite light compared to a pinion C3 gearbox. I don't know if that number includes the whole transmission tho.
If any here want to see what the Honda RN01s first gearbox iteration was, check European Patent Application EP 1 366 978 A1, it's date of filing was 20-03-2003. It was described as 'Continuously Variable Transmission For Bicycles'. And that, it certainly was / could be.
It was an incredible thing, using 4 (?) link arms and multiple pivot / center points, the repositioning of those creating various 'strokes' of said links, and arcs, thence into rotation.
Why do it on a bicycle? Well, for real world testing of a (relatively) high torque load at what are very low revs, that you want to be as smooth as possible, well, the Human / Machine interface is pretty bloody demanding of perfection. Any problems, would be so very, very obvious, and destructive of smooth gear changes and power transfer. Honda tried variations of it on Motorcycles.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it may have been similar to what was first used on the 1991 RC250AM Auto, which was used to win the 1992 the All Japan MX Series. Though, the RC250AM also had some elements of what was to become the Seamless Gearboxes used in MotoGP. I think it was also raced at least once in a Japanese end of season International, by the late, great Eric Geboers (RIP) . Jeff Stanton may have done so, too.
It was completely different to the later, infinitely simpler ' sliding cluster and derailleur on shafts ' set up of the later versions. I doubt they could have much of a chance at a patent on that, other than 'detail' sections of the mechanism, as that was being done by others. I can't recall the company (started with 'B', and may have been German, in my dim, Old Bear Brain) that Hayes bought the rights to, around the 2005 / 2006 time frame, but, they did nothing with it , to my recollection.
Saw what must be the new Atherton bikes am170 prototype at Dyfi this weekend, appears to move away from the suspension platform on their current bikes. It had a solid rear triangle and the rocker was in a similar orientation to the current Devinci spartan. Seems interesting that even though they have a proven platform that works for 200mm and 150mm travel they're trying new things for the 170. Can say it was a really nice-looking bike though.
That would be very surprising to me if they changed their suspension platform. Doesn't make any sense, unless they are looking for a more HP/rearward axle path
It would be unexpected if Atherton changed layouts. They could be trying to simplify their bikes: less expensive and faster to make. CWizzle: was the solid rear triangle still constructed from carbon tubes and ti lugs like all their bikes thus far?
Moving to a traditionally manufactured rear triangle (and maybe links too) with their current printed ti/carbon tube system for front triangle (and varying pivot locations to adjust chainstay lengths for different sizes like a lot of companies do) would reduce the number of printed ti parts and thus allow more frames to be made for a given run time of the printer. Printer is probably a bottleneck. But they still have the cool and customizable printed ti/carbon tubes for front triangle so would still be as desirable and cool as they currently are.
I think the rear triangle was carbon, front triangle was still the lug and tube construction they use on current bikes. Was a fully silver bike also with no branding, pretty sure it had been painted up and it looked very sleek.
It will be interesting to see why they've changed the platform if it makes it to production.
Based on their Instagram post, which look likes their other frames and is tagged AM170, I don't think they are moving away from their current platform. Maybe they were just trying out other designs to compare?
In one of their IG posts they talk about debating whether to have it visible. They decided to use clear lexan since they’re not trying to hide anything.
Very cool, thanks!
In an interview with Martin Whitely, he talks about the RN-01 being seen by Honda as a thought experiment to encourage more creative problem solving from engineers and designers.
With a company like Honda, there’s so much cool stuff that will never see the marketplace.
Could it be something else they're working on? They've had an insta post about a cheaper line, possibly made with subtractive manufacturing (hashtags hinted that way). On the pic are parts which are clearly milled:
SB120 is official
https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/2023-yeti-sb120-review
spoiler - expensive (as already noted here). rides well.
So perhaps cnc lugs instead of printed? You could put out a lot of cheaper bikes with a bank of mills running day and night.
Don’t get me wrong, I love CNC stuff, it usually comes out looking like jewelry. But…..I prefer the idea of additive manufacturing to subtractive manufacturing. Is it cheaper to have a bank of CNC mills to additive machines (honest question) I feel like their are more possibilities with additive manufacturing, but I could be wrong.
Additive manufacturing is still more time and resource consuming, and as a novel technology, the cost of machinery will be more expensive. Also, Atherton are using titanium as the material for additive manufacturing, which means high material cost. AM has good flexibility for customization and complex internal structures, where CNC needs to be programmed more intensively with tool paths etc. and is also limited by access for the tooling. AM has several supports and post production steps, whereas CNC delivers a finished product straight out of the machine.
Yeah but the C series Yeti 160 GX is $11,490 AUD and the Spire Carbon GX is $11,699 AUD.
Either way its pretty crazy
I believe that since additive manufacturing is so new, the machines are probably more expensive. Also cnc is much faster and requires less hand work to clean it up after printing. Thus lower price. It seems The Barron got here first...
Can we all agree the rent is too damn high so we can stop debating bikes prices in the tech rumors forum?
I hadn't seen this instagram post until now but i'm almost certain the bike I saw was this new more affordable R&D theyre doing as seen in the post. Looked really clean
Shitting on yeti for their pricing is one of the increasingly rare things the overwhelming majority of guys can all agree on. Let us enjoy it lol.
CNC over additive makes sense for a whole bunch of reasons - off the shelf materials and abundantly available sub contractors spring to mind. But I think the post processing of the additive parts is probably the real killer, most notably the fact that bearing surfaces will have to be CNC’d anyway.
How they work around the double lap joints and internal structures using CNC will be interesting though.
Seems like it finally landed on S site https://www.specialized.com/us/en/s-works-enduro-frameset/p/200517?colo…
The downtube that you can see a little bit of in the photo looks aluminum. That plus Wizzle saying the bike was "fully silver" makes me think that they're using aluminum lugs bonded to aluminum tubes. I know it could have been painted but maybe it's just polished raw aluminum. Bonding cnc Al lugs to Al tubes is unusual. I mean if you're going to make a fully aluminum bike why not just use mitered/formed tubesets and welding like everyone else? But bonding would eliminate post weld heat treat. I don't have any experience with bonding like this. On the face of it, it seems like it could be faster than welding and wouldn't require as skilled of labor compared to welding. Anyone knowledgeable/experienced with fancy glue that can chime in?
It does seem odd to not just use carbon tubes bonded to Al lugs though. For the total cost of a frame, it doesn't seem like it'd save that much.
$3400? the new sb160 frame is only $5000 lol
I work in Aerospace, we produce a part for helicopters that is essentially the same principle used at Atherton bikes, albeit our brackets are CNC alloy in to carbon tubes. The bonding of the part is exactly the same, I did actually apply at Atherton when they were looking for people.
Bonding of CNC alloy 'lugs' into alloy tubes can also be done, no problem, there are adhesives for all sorts of material bonding out there, 3M being the biggest supplier for all of them. Pretty sure a 3M DP490 after lap shear testing would result in a strong enough bond for the application, but I'm sure they'd be numerous adhesives they manufacture that could work to different strengths.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation