I'm not sure why all the rage over narrow rear ends? The feet are much wider after all. I mean is it for heel clearance or...
I'm not sure why all the rage over narrow rear ends? The feet are much wider after all. I mean is it for heel clearance or for obstacle clearance?
BTW, I'm kinda wondering what would happen if the swingarm was pivoting around the upper drivetrain axle/shaft instead of the 'BB'. It would be a high pivot and would have less unsprung weight. Sure, the rotational speeds of it currently are low, but not zero!
We don't always ride straight. One might, when riding around or through some rocks, pay attention to ones feet and avoid any collision and then lean in and scrape the derailleur off on the way by.
We don't always ride straight. One might, when riding around or through some rocks, pay attention to ones feet and avoid any collision and then lean...
We don't always ride straight. One might, when riding around or through some rocks, pay attention to ones feet and avoid any collision and then lean in and scrape the derailleur off on the way by.
I've also had a massive JRA OTB crash straight to my head because my heel caught on my 150mm rear end.
I must knock on wood as I haven't had problems with this. And I'm a right foot forward rider, where the derailleur is more exposed if anything.
Under the line I still don't see a narrow rear end as THAT big of an advantage, as your situation is a bit of an edge case. You could say a narrower rear end will enable you to go through narrow gulleys, but there are still the pedals and the feet to deal with.
I'd buy the heel rub & co. as the more important reason, but again, I'm one of the riders that has never had an issue with this (never really damaged a frame or a crank through pedalling), so I can't put myself in those shoes.
So will norco release 2 bikes or was the double crowned bike we all saw a super enduro being thoroughly tested?
Possibly one bike with two stroke options for the shock? Maybe 170-180 & single crown vs 190-200 & dual crown?Also didn't someone mention a bottle mount they spotted on the DH bike?
Possibly one bike with two stroke options for the shock? Maybe 170-180 & single crown vs 190-200 & dual crown?Also didn't someone mention a bottle mount...
Possibly one bike with two stroke options for the shock? Maybe 170-180 & single crown vs 190-200 & dual crown?Also didn't someone mention a bottle mount they spotted on the DH bike?
I saw the DH proto in the Whistler Bikepark, and it did have bottle mounts. It did not look anything like this though, with much different proportions. The seat tube was in a different position. I think they are doing the same thing as Specialized did with the Demo and Enduro, using a very similar suspension design, but slightly different looks and proportions.
I'm not sure why all the rage over narrow rear ends? The feet are much wider after all. I mean is it for heel clearance or...
I'm not sure why all the rage over narrow rear ends? The feet are much wider after all. I mean is it for heel clearance or for obstacle clearance?
BTW, I'm kinda wondering what would happen if the swingarm was pivoting around the upper drivetrain axle/shaft instead of the 'BB'. It would be a high pivot and would have less unsprung weight. Sure, the rotational speeds of it currently are low, but not zero!
We don't always ride straight. One might, when riding around or through some rocks, pay attention to ones feet and avoid any collision and then lean...
We don't always ride straight. One might, when riding around or through some rocks, pay attention to ones feet and avoid any collision and then lean in and scrape the derailleur off on the way by.
My demo had a 135mm rear end, they designed it like that to "get through rock gardens"
all it resulted in was huge wheel flex in berms lol. Shit idea. But good on paper I suppose.
Well 135 and 142 are the same flange width wise. And boost was brought in for the 29ers if anything. With the 7spd cassettes a 135/142 rear end could probably be made to work. If the flange spacing was OK and the rear end still flexy, then it's down to suspension/frame design.
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo style linkage) but has a completely reworked suspension design that might be using flex stays
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo...
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo style linkage) but has a completely reworked suspension design that might be using flex stays
RE New Stumpjumper:
I forgot to save the image myself before it was taken down. Definitely no traditional horst-link. Looks almost like an Epic EVO rear end mated to current Stumpy front triangle (albeit longer/slacker).
And the specs listed a 45mm(?!) stroke shock. I can't imagine a shock that short for anything over 120mm. But the specs didn't say it was the ST model that had that shock. So if the bike is 130mm, that's a high 2.89 leverage ratio. No way they're using 45mm to get 140mm. So this lends to the thought there is a Stumpy that's a 120mm bike. Then maybe a Stumpy EVO with 140mm and possibly horst link. Then the Enduro to top of their trail range.
Unless they’ve discovered something new, I’d be surprised if they’re able to get more than 120mm from a flex stay design without using an unreasonable leverage ratio.
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for my next bike and Intense definitely has my interest!
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for...
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for my next bike and Intense definitely has my interest!
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for...
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for my next bike and Intense definitely has my interest!
Not a fan of the IS headset of the Santa Cruz bikes. The new Intense looks to be a mullet which is great because I am 5'8 with short legs. I believe there was another thread where I explained why i don't like 29 in the back but to sum it up, it's the BB drop in relation to the rear axle. Also, if we really are going to talk about who did the lower shock mounting link first, we should be talking about the Banshee Legend which for some reason many seem to have forgotten about.
Why would the leverage ratio be an issue? (for the flex stays of course, the way it's worded it implies that these are connected)
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in order to get more travel they would have to use a higher leverage ratio which seems less fashionable nowadays. Unless they have come up with a way to get more flex from the stays, which is possible?
Not a fan of the IS headset of the Santa Cruz bikes. The new Intense looks to be a mullet which is great because I am...
Not a fan of the IS headset of the Santa Cruz bikes. The new Intense looks to be a mullet which is great because I am 5'8 with short legs. I believe there was another thread where I explained why i don't like 29 in the back but to sum it up, it's the BB drop in relation to the rear axle. Also, if we really are going to talk about who did the lower shock mounting link first, we should be talking about the Banshee Legend which for some reason many seem to have forgotten about.
The Legend is a co-rotating link arrangement, the Intense and Santa Cruz bikes use a counter rotating link arrangement.
Also, if you go by your logic, you have the Demo 9.
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for...
Anyone got any word on these? I've been riding a loaner 2020 Primer 275 lately and really loving it. Looking at what my options are for my next bike and Intense definitely has my interest!
Not a fan of the IS headset of the Santa Cruz bikes. The new Intense looks to be a mullet which is great because I am...
Not a fan of the IS headset of the Santa Cruz bikes. The new Intense looks to be a mullet which is great because I am 5'8 with short legs. I believe there was another thread where I explained why i don't like 29 in the back but to sum it up, it's the BB drop in relation to the rear axle. Also, if we really are going to talk about who did the lower shock mounting link first, we should be talking about the Banshee Legend which for some reason many seem to have forgotten about.
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in...
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in order to get more travel they would have to use a higher leverage ratio which seems less fashionable nowadays. Unless they have come up with a way to get more flex from the stays, which is possible?
So yeah, I understood you correctly. So again, why would the leverage ratio and flex stays be an issue?
Regarding more travel, if you use a thinner and longer section for the flex stays you can get a whole lot of travel. Or with the correct link arrangement, you can get very small rotations of the rear link (or the flex part). And so on. There is a lot of talk that flex stays only go up to X travel. Yet modern airliners have wings that go to near vertical at the tips through their flex (in the destructive test for the wings).
All you have to do is to make the structure deform to the point you need and to ensure the stresses in the deformation are low enough. How to do that and if that is practical from a manufacturing point of view and how it affects other parts of a design is a different story on the other hand.
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in...
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in order to get more travel they would have to use a higher leverage ratio which seems less fashionable nowadays. Unless they have come up with a way to get more flex from the stays, which is possible?
So yeah, I understood you correctly. So again, why would the leverage ratio and flex stays be an issue?
Regarding more travel, if you use a...
So yeah, I understood you correctly. So again, why would the leverage ratio and flex stays be an issue?
Regarding more travel, if you use a thinner and longer section for the flex stays you can get a whole lot of travel. Or with the correct link arrangement, you can get very small rotations of the rear link (or the flex part). And so on. There is a lot of talk that flex stays only go up to X travel. Yet modern airliners have wings that go to near vertical at the tips through their flex (in the destructive test for the wings).
All you have to do is to make the structure deform to the point you need and to ensure the stresses in the deformation are low enough. How to do that and if that is practical from a manufacturing point of view and how it affects other parts of a design is a different story on the other hand.
Agreed, basically it should theoretically be possible but yet no one seems to be doing it or able to do it for some reason?
Maybe some of the boutique Ti frames are doing it?
In an industry where most carbon bikes are designed from an industrial look point of view and the layup is determined by eye and then fixed if the tests fail in Asian factories, it's hard to see who would do the kind of development work to make it work. Specialized might have the capabilities and knowledge for it, but it's a matter of cost vs reward. You gain what, a few 10 grams on frame weight? It's most likely not worth it when you then put DH casing tyres on the bike...
But I'm still saying it's not impossible to make a flex stay bike with 150+ mm of travel. Impractical maybe but not impossible.
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in...
No I’m just saying that they only seem to be able to get a certain amount of flex out of the stays so far so in order to get more travel they would have to use a higher leverage ratio which seems less fashionable nowadays. Unless they have come up with a way to get more flex from the stays, which is possible?
So yeah, I understood you correctly. So again, why would the leverage ratio and flex stays be an issue?
Regarding more travel, if you use a...
So yeah, I understood you correctly. So again, why would the leverage ratio and flex stays be an issue?
Regarding more travel, if you use a thinner and longer section for the flex stays you can get a whole lot of travel. Or with the correct link arrangement, you can get very small rotations of the rear link (or the flex part). And so on. There is a lot of talk that flex stays only go up to X travel. Yet modern airliners have wings that go to near vertical at the tips through their flex (in the destructive test for the wings).
All you have to do is to make the structure deform to the point you need and to ensure the stresses in the deformation are low enough. How to do that and if that is practical from a manufacturing point of view and how it affects other parts of a design is a different story on the other hand.
Agreed, basically it should theoretically be possible but yet no one seems to be doing it or able to do it for some reason?
Maybe some...
Agreed, basically it should theoretically be possible but yet no one seems to be doing it or able to do it for some reason?
Maybe some of the boutique Ti frames are doing it?
Its actually not hard to do. It has more to do with the anti-rise arrangement of the link. You can make a link that puts minimal movement on the seatstays, or if you do your own carbon layup get quite a bit of flex. This bike has 160mm of rear travel with flex stays, and without the shock mounted this guy can flex it with his finger.
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo...
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo style linkage) but has a completely reworked suspension design that might be using flex stays
New Stumpjumper is going to be like the Enduro/Demo.
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo...
I heard some chatter about the 2021 stumpjumper on a different forum. Supposedly it looks similar to the 2020 (basically it’s not switching to the demo style linkage) but has a completely reworked suspension design that might be using flex stays
That’s cool, glad to see that it is already being done! I wonder if the flex affects the rebound in any way, similar to the way that living link does on spot bikes?
Under the line I still don't see a narrow rear end as THAT big of an advantage, as your situation is a bit of an edge case. You could say a narrower rear end will enable you to go through narrow gulleys, but there are still the pedals and the feet to deal with.
I'd buy the heel rub & co. as the more important reason, but again, I'm one of the riders that has never had an issue with this (never really damaged a frame or a crank through pedalling), so I can't put myself in those shoes.
all it resulted in was huge wheel flex in berms lol. Shit idea. But good on paper I suppose.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CE4zlIMpSQh/?igshid=1d5m5he7giru0
I forgot to save the image myself before it was taken down. Definitely no traditional horst-link. Looks almost like an Epic EVO rear end mated to current Stumpy front triangle (albeit longer/slacker).
And the specs listed a 45mm(?!) stroke shock. I can't imagine a shock that short for anything over 120mm. But the specs didn't say it was the ST model that had that shock. So if the bike is 130mm, that's a high 2.89 leverage ratio. No way they're using 45mm to get 140mm. So this lends to the thought there is a Stumpy that's a 120mm bike. Then maybe a Stumpy EVO with 140mm and possibly horst link. Then the Enduro to top of their trail range.
https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-US/bikes/megatower
Also, if you go by your logic, you have the Demo 9.
Not sure what year the Legend came out but I think VPP came from Outland back in the mid to late 90s.
Regarding more travel, if you use a thinner and longer section for the flex stays you can get a whole lot of travel. Or with the correct link arrangement, you can get very small rotations of the rear link (or the flex part). And so on. There is a lot of talk that flex stays only go up to X travel. Yet modern airliners have wings that go to near vertical at the tips through their flex (in the destructive test for the wings).
All you have to do is to make the structure deform to the point you need and to ensure the stresses in the deformation are low enough. How to do that and if that is practical from a manufacturing point of view and how it affects other parts of a design is a different story on the other hand.
Maybe some of the boutique Ti frames are doing it?
But I'm still saying it's not impossible to make a flex stay bike with 150+ mm of travel. Impractical maybe but not impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lforMUieF8s
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation