the status DH has a 180mm boxxer, not 200, FYI. not sure why there's a friday embargo if the bike's out in the wild for everyone...
the status DH has a 180mm boxxer, not 200, FYI. not sure why there's a friday embargo if the bike's out in the wild for everyone to see and talk about
They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before release but told everyone except them not to talk about it. Weird.
It doesn't look cracked to me, but it does look shoddy. Lines are great though, and the idea of a 27.5/26 inch mullet full suspension bike from a major company is pretty neat.
I promise this is tech related! The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe...
I promise this is tech related!
The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe the first to do this) accomplishes both by simply moving the main pivot location in the front triangle back for larger sizes. Each size needs a different front triangle anyways, so this is a slick solution.
Another solution is adjustable dropouts or pivots (like S does). This is probably a tad more expensive than above from the extra complication of a flip chip or whatever, and it will alter the suspension kinematics, primarily by increasing rear travel & raising the leverage ratio in the "long" position.
Related to the new Ibis sharing triangles across not just sizes but models, the downside is compliance tuning. Its easy to make the front triangle stiffer for larger sizes, but then your shared rear triangle is probably going to be too stiff in the smaller sizes and too complaint in the larger sizes. This is worse for sharing the main triangle across models. It has to be overbuild for the shorter travel bike, and that bike will be way stiff and heavier than it needs to be. Since geometry evolution has pretty much settled down, and given what WC riders are experimenting with now at Commencal & Hart on his GT, I think tuned compliance is the next innovation in mountain bikes (Whats old is new again; I'm aware that Cedric Gracia was experimenting with detuned spokes, cut fork crowns, etc a dozen years ago)
Norco's been doing size-specific rear centers using a single (or rather, a seat- and chain- ) SKU for over a decade now, FWIW. Since their Killer-B Sight and Range launched in fall 2012, if I recall. Now it tracks that Owen Pemberton did work there at the time...
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry and travel was altered via the shock yoke and fork height.
Amazingly, all bikes had a 462mm rear centre lol, was great for me on my XL Range, imagine been 5.0ft tall and having a CS longer than your reach on a size small. So much front end grip the tyre would dig to CHYNA!
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry...
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry and travel was altered via the shock yoke and fork height.
Amazingly, all bikes had a 462mm rear centre lol, was great for me on my XL Range, imagine been 5.0ft tall and having a CS longer than your reach on a size small. So much front end grip the tyre would dig to CHYNA!
I see what you're getting at but long/short chainstay debate is a little ridiculous. The difference between a "short" chainstay at 435 and "long" at 465 is only 30mm or 6% of the entire chainstay's length. Menawhile, reach grows by over 100mm across most brands sizing and no one talks about its impact on front/rear weight distribution.
The head of development for Privateer was talking on the Blister Review podcast about how the first sample bike they got of their ebike was a small with 465 chainstays and how good it handled.
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry...
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry and travel was altered via the shock yoke and fork height.
Amazingly, all bikes had a 462mm rear centre lol, was great for me on my XL Range, imagine been 5.0ft tall and having a CS longer than your reach on a size small. So much front end grip the tyre would dig to CHYNA!
I see what you're getting at but long/short chainstay debate is a little ridiculous. The difference between a "short" chainstay at 435 and "long" at 465...
I see what you're getting at but long/short chainstay debate is a little ridiculous. The difference between a "short" chainstay at 435 and "long" at 465 is only 30mm or 6% of the entire chainstay's length. Menawhile, reach grows by over 100mm across most brands sizing and no one talks about its impact on front/rear weight distribution.
The head of development for Privateer was talking on the Blister Review podcast about how the first sample bike they got of their ebike was a small with 465 chainstays and how good it handled.
yep agreed, long CS allows higher stack too.
One of the great feelings of these modern geo bikes is feeling "in" the bike rather than "on" it. It's hard to explain, but when you have sufficient wheelbase, stack and low enough BB the feeling of confidence and control is fantastic. This may not be for everyone, and that's OK.
The older I get the more I realize people like different things, it's not that one is right or wrong, people just prefer apples to oranges so to speak.
A bit after the 7 minute mark stuff on the new status starts,170 coil rear + 200mm boxxer versionshorter travel (140?) 27.5/26 version Stumpys mudguard has turned...
A bit after the 7 minute mark stuff on the new status starts,
170 coil rear + 200mm boxxer version
shorter travel (140?) 27.5/26 version
Stumpys mudguard has turned up, downtube protector, not sure what all the stuff is down the non driveside. External routing points?
Also saw this over on instagram, colourway matches that website that is listing the old spec for the 24 170 version
sets $6k aside for both
I'll so gladly trade NX for Deore (*edit), +1 to the Status launch being way more exciting than the stumpy. Accessible 26" parts will be perfect for my Sunday rebuild too. Go big S!
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short...
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short and freakishly tall people out there. I prefer how YT does it where there's one size, say 440mm for S, M, L and then 450mm for XL and XXL. Achieves a balanced bike feel and balanced manufacturing cost/cost-benefit to the average consumer who rides a M or a L.
it It's annoying to see "they share the same front triangle" bandied about and prices still increase this much. I had a Ripmo V1 frame for $3k then an AF for $1.8K and the V3 frames are now $3.7K. That's 23% and my pay surely didn't go up 23% in the past few years. Not to use YT again, but I'm pretty sure they share a front triangle between the Decoy MX and Decoy 29 but DON'T shove that fact in your face and instead let their much lower prices do the talking. Cheapest Decoy MX was $5K when it came out in 2018 and it remains $5K to this day (on sale for $4K rn but MSRP is still $5K)
I promise this is tech related! The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe...
I promise this is tech related!
The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe the first to do this) accomplishes both by simply moving the main pivot location in the front triangle back for larger sizes. Each size needs a different front triangle anyways, so this is a slick solution.
Another solution is adjustable dropouts or pivots (like S does). This is probably a tad more expensive than above from the extra complication of a flip chip or whatever, and it will alter the suspension kinematics, primarily by increasing rear travel & raising the leverage ratio in the "long" position.
Related to the new Ibis sharing triangles across not just sizes but models, the downside is compliance tuning. Its easy to make the front triangle stiffer for larger sizes, but then your shared rear triangle is probably going to be too stiff in the smaller sizes and too complaint in the larger sizes. This is worse for sharing the main triangle across models. It has to be overbuild for the shorter travel bike, and that bike will be way stiff and heavier than it needs to be. Since geometry evolution has pretty much settled down, and given what WC riders are experimenting with now at Commencal & Hart on his GT, I think tuned compliance is the next innovation in mountain bikes (Whats old is new again; I'm aware that Cedric Gracia was experimenting with detuned spokes, cut fork crowns, etc a dozen years ago)
You can use the same mould but tune the layup. The cost impact is negligible compared to a whole new mould.
They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before...
They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before release but told everyone except them not to talk about it. Weird.
It doesn't look cracked to me, but it does look shoddy. Lines are great though, and the idea of a 27.5/26 inch mullet full suspension bike from a major company is pretty neat.
I think the 27.5/26 is probably a kids/short person version. I think it's unlikely they will offer sizing for anyone over 160cm in that wheel size. I hope there is still a normal sized 140mm option.
Really excited to see Foes develop something that isn't a boomer bike. Their last few years have been pretty sad... they have an opportunity to really shine, with a great brand heritage and US based aluminum fab capability.
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short...
I'm anti size specific chainstays as I see it as increasing cost for the vast majority of riders (on M and L) for the freakishly short and freakishly tall people out there. I prefer how YT does it where there's one size, say 440mm for S, M, L and then 450mm for XL and XXL. Achieves a balanced bike feel and balanced manufacturing cost/cost-benefit to the average consumer who rides a M or a L.
it It's annoying to see "they share the same front triangle" bandied about and prices still increase this much. I had a Ripmo V1 frame for $3k then an AF for $1.8K and the V3 frames are now $3.7K. That's 23% and my pay surely didn't go up 23% in the past few years. Not to use YT again, but I'm pretty sure they share a front triangle between the Decoy MX and Decoy 29 but DON'T shove that fact in your face and instead let their much lower prices do the talking. Cheapest Decoy MX was $5K when it came out in 2018 and it remains $5K to this day (on sale for $4K rn but MSRP is still $5K)
I promise this is tech related! The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe...
I promise this is tech related!
The cost savings from constant chainstay lengths across sizes is because brands can reuse the rear triangle(s). HOWEVER, Forbidden (I believe the first to do this) accomplishes both by simply moving the main pivot location in the front triangle back for larger sizes. Each size needs a different front triangle anyways, so this is a slick solution.
Another solution is adjustable dropouts or pivots (like S does). This is probably a tad more expensive than above from the extra complication of a flip chip or whatever, and it will alter the suspension kinematics, primarily by increasing rear travel & raising the leverage ratio in the "long" position.
Related to the new Ibis sharing triangles across not just sizes but models, the downside is compliance tuning. Its easy to make the front triangle stiffer for larger sizes, but then your shared rear triangle is probably going to be too stiff in the smaller sizes and too complaint in the larger sizes. This is worse for sharing the main triangle across models. It has to be overbuild for the shorter travel bike, and that bike will be way stiff and heavier than it needs to be. Since geometry evolution has pretty much settled down, and given what WC riders are experimenting with now at Commencal & Hart on his GT, I think tuned compliance is the next innovation in mountain bikes (Whats old is new again; I'm aware that Cedric Gracia was experimenting with detuned spokes, cut fork crowns, etc a dozen years ago)
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Yes, good, I remember this now, and Yeti too as chrischef mentioned. They do it for cost savings, but I'm curious if any do it for complaince tuning. It puts you in a tough spot when you say "each frame is tuned for the perfect compliance given its travel and riding intentions" because then you're pretty much admitting you resuse molds. GG was the only one brave enough to admit that.
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
yeti has their turq spec carbon frames, also specialized did use different carbon layups on their s-works models in the past.
We Are One does it for some rims. A handful of them share the exact profile/mold but the DH versions just have more material. Their racers can even request different layups/amounts of material depending on their preferences.
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame...
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
YT has the Ultra Modulus and High Modulus Carbon frames. Although it appears the difference is a combination of different carbon and more layers in cretain parts of the frame.
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used...
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
A select few brands do it on mountain side but using a higher grade carbon to get that lighter weight is common between budget friendly and high end builds on road bikes.
They did this with the last one. They gave a bunch of tangentially MTB-related athlete influencer types (like skateboarders and BMX people) the status months before release but told everyone except them not to talk about it. Weird.
It doesn't look cracked to me, but it does look shoddy. Lines are great though, and the idea of a 27.5/26 inch mullet full suspension bike from a major company is pretty neat.
Norco's been doing size-specific rear centers using a single (or rather, a seat- and chain- ) SKU for over a decade now, FWIW. Since their Killer-B Sight and Range launched in fall 2012, if I recall. Now it tracks that Owen Pemberton did work there at the time...
Norco also shared 3 front triangles and Chainstays amongst 3 bikes. The Range, Sight & Fluid VLT's all shared the same front and rear triangle. Geometry and travel was altered via the shock yoke and fork height.
Amazingly, all bikes had a 462mm rear centre lol, was great for me on my XL Range, imagine been 5.0ft tall and having a CS longer than your reach on a size small. So much front end grip the tyre would dig to CHYNA!
It looks like they're using the aluminum Stumpjumper Evo chainstays. It has the same adjustment.
I see what you're getting at but long/short chainstay debate is a little ridiculous. The difference between a "short" chainstay at 435 and "long" at 465 is only 30mm or 6% of the entire chainstay's length. Menawhile, reach grows by over 100mm across most brands sizing and no one talks about its impact on front/rear weight distribution.
The head of development for Privateer was talking on the Blister Review podcast about how the first sample bike they got of their ebike was a small with 465 chainstays and how good it handled.
yep agreed, long CS allows higher stack too.
One of the great feelings of these modern geo bikes is feeling "in" the bike rather than "on" it. It's hard to explain, but when you have sufficient wheelbase, stack and low enough BB the feeling of confidence and control is fantastic. This may not be for everyone, and that's OK.
The older I get the more I realize people like different things, it's not that one is right or wrong, people just prefer apples to oranges so to speak.
sets $6k aside for both
I'll so gladly trade NX for Deore (*edit), +1 to the Status launch being way more exciting than the stumpy. Accessible 26" parts will be perfect for my Sunday rebuild too. Go big S!
New from Maxxis
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9hfdpAiu-x/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
High Roller
You can use the same mould but tune the layup. The cost impact is negligible compared to a whole new mould.
I think the 27.5/26 is probably a kids/short person version. I think it's unlikely they will offer sizing for anyone over 160cm in that wheel size. I hope there is still a normal sized 140mm option.
Sam Hill gonna be back on a big bike hopefully
Huge plus on the Gary Fisher appearance! Legends over legends there 👌
Really excited to see Foes develop something that isn't a boomer bike. Their last few years have been pretty sad... they have an opportunity to really shine, with a great brand heritage and US based aluminum fab capability.
I was not aware of this. How?
Put less or more or different layers of carbon into the same tool?
The tool defines the outer surface. What you do inside is up to the person laying up the material.
Kinda like making an aluminium tube with different thickness but the same outer dimensions.
Yes this and how each ply is orientated to the next (typically 45 degrees, 90 or parallel) will also make a difference in stiffness etc.
Do any manufactures actually do this?
Perhaps how Santa Cruz differentiate between their C and CC builds? There was another manufacturer as well that had a cheaper variant of the same frame as well...
Yeti as well with their TURQ and C/Series frames.
https://yeticycles.com/technology/materials
Yes, good, I remember this now, and Yeti too as chrischef mentioned. They do it for cost savings, but I'm curious if any do it for complaince tuning. It puts you in a tough spot when you say "each frame is tuned for the perfect compliance given its travel and riding intentions" because then you're pretty much admitting you resuse molds. GG was the only one brave enough to admit that.
yeti has their turq spec carbon frames, also specialized did use different carbon layups on their s-works models in the past.
What a wild combination of names I never thought I'd read within one post lol.
We Are One does it for some rims. A handful of them share the exact profile/mold but the DH versions just have more material. Their racers can even request different layups/amounts of material depending on their preferences.
Turq, CC, etc are built using a more expensive and stronger grade of carbon fiber.
They’re not the same material with a different layup.
foes not too dissimilar to saracen when they ran the floater? (i have no idea who did what first and am not trying to say one is copying another)
the more i look at it though, there are plenty of differences 😐
What Santa Cruz and Yeti (and Scott) do is use different materials where a more expensive material is stronger and less of it can be used. Thus lower weight. What that means for stiffness I can't say, but supposedly they should all be as strong (and stiff?) just with some heavier and cheaper.
But I can say with 100 percent certainty that different layups can and do affect stiffness 🙂
Pivot does different carbon lay up for each size
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9KaKQKsRsS/?igsh=MWh4cHU0M3FkbGY5dw==
Don‘t know the guy but he’s got a Status170.
YT has the Ultra Modulus and High Modulus Carbon frames. Although it appears the difference is a combination of different carbon and more layers in cretain parts of the frame.
A select few brands do it on mountain side but using a higher grade carbon to get that lighter weight is common between budget friendly and high end builds on road bikes.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation