Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or...
Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or 3 carbon moulds for the chainstays instead of 5. We've reached peak "size specific chainstays" marketing hype.
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is important because AS changes with wheelbase and with respect to the height of the centre of the sprung mass, which is obviously different for different sizes and different rider heights. Even if they might not have been able to make a meaningful difference to the geometry due to clearances, they've likely still made useful changes that help the different sizes perform similarly.
Redigging this up because I know some companies lurk here and in a way, comprehensive messages may be influential. A point I want to stress is...
Redigging this up because I know some companies lurk here and in a way, comprehensive messages may be influential. A point I want to stress is how boring 50% of the market is. Its 4 Bar bikes. As someone else stated, its easy to make 4 bar bikes and easier to make them mediocre. It sure seems like a lot of companies copy and paste the same 4 bar design over and over and say its the second coming of Jesus. I give credit to Specialized that for a little I had their frames. They had SWAT. No one else had this. Now its more common and 4 bar frame storage bikes are going to be the norm. I guess my point is, if youre going to do 4 bar, do something unique with your frame to stand out from other 4 bar copy and pastes your competing against. Rant over. Sorry guys.
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of a product or system being most heavily valued by the consumer of the product. The more the underlying form needs to adhere to very rigid design criteria for an intended function, optimization will likely yield at most a handful and at least a single design that will win out. Straying from this "best" design will put you at a significant disadvantage, especially when the product itself is intended to do something more than just "look cool".
I'd argue we value performance more than anything in the mountain bike space hence the trend of things looking similar will probably continue (or intensify). While I don't think they'll be one singular design, I do think we're way past where we were in the early 2000s, where there were seemingly endless suspension and geometry configurations.
Don't believe me? Just look at other two wheel'd sports like off road moto, where most bikes follow similar lines, geomtery, and suspension layout. Another example would be something like jetliners where there are nuanced differences, but more or less all commercial airliners look alike.
Redigging this up because I know some companies lurk here and in a way, comprehensive messages may be influential. A point I want to stress is...
Redigging this up because I know some companies lurk here and in a way, comprehensive messages may be influential. A point I want to stress is how boring 50% of the market is. Its 4 Bar bikes. As someone else stated, its easy to make 4 bar bikes and easier to make them mediocre. It sure seems like a lot of companies copy and paste the same 4 bar design over and over and say its the second coming of Jesus. I give credit to Specialized that for a little I had their frames. They had SWAT. No one else had this. Now its more common and 4 bar frame storage bikes are going to be the norm. I guess my point is, if youre going to do 4 bar, do something unique with your frame to stand out from other 4 bar copy and pastes your competing against. Rant over. Sorry guys.
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of...
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of a product or system being most heavily valued by the consumer of the product. The more the underlying form needs to adhere to very rigid design criteria for an intended function, optimization will likely yield at most a handful and at least a single design that will win out. Straying from this "best" design will put you at a significant disadvantage, especially when the product itself is intended to do something more than just "look cool".
I'd argue we value performance more than anything in the mountain bike space hence the trend of things looking similar will probably continue (or intensify). While I don't think they'll be one singular design, I do think we're way past where we were in the early 2000s, where there were seemingly endless suspension and geometry configurations.
Don't believe me? Just look at other two wheel'd sports like off road moto, where most bikes follow similar lines, geomtery, and suspension layout. Another example would be something like jetliners where there are nuanced differences, but more or less all commercial airliners look alike.
Alright Ill take it back. When you mention the comparison of other industries. We are spoiled. Im spoiled. Ill be quiet.
Alright Ill take it back. When you mention the comparison of other industries. We are spoiled. Im spoiled. Ill be quiet.
Don't take it back! You have a point! You'll still find plenty of interesting stuff out there, but you'll probably have to pay (a lot more) for it and it will get pushed more and more to the edges of the market. That's all.
Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or...
Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or 3 carbon moulds for the chainstays instead of 5. We've reached peak "size specific chainstays" marketing hype.
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is...
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is important because AS changes with wheelbase and with respect to the height of the centre of the sprung mass, which is obviously different for different sizes and different rider heights. Even if they might not have been able to make a meaningful difference to the geometry due to clearances, they've likely still made useful changes that help the different sizes perform similarly.
Just speculation!
Luckily with a higher CoG (taller riders) you usually get a longer wheelbase and the two effects kinda cancel eachouther out.
Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or...
Wow 1 whole mm difference in chainstay length between the size S and M! Imagine how much cheaper the bike could be with only 2 or 3 carbon moulds for the chainstays instead of 5. We've reached peak "size specific chainstays" marketing hype.
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is...
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is important because AS changes with wheelbase and with respect to the height of the centre of the sprung mass, which is obviously different for different sizes and different rider heights. Even if they might not have been able to make a meaningful difference to the geometry due to clearances, they've likely still made useful changes that help the different sizes perform similarly.
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of...
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of a product or system being most heavily valued by the consumer of the product. The more the underlying form needs to adhere to very rigid design criteria for an intended function, optimization will likely yield at most a handful and at least a single design that will win out. Straying from this "best" design will put you at a significant disadvantage, especially when the product itself is intended to do something more than just "look cool".
I'd argue we value performance more than anything in the mountain bike space hence the trend of things looking similar will probably continue (or intensify). While I don't think they'll be one singular design, I do think we're way past where we were in the early 2000s, where there were seemingly endless suspension and geometry configurations.
Don't believe me? Just look at other two wheel'd sports like off road moto, where most bikes follow similar lines, geomtery, and suspension layout. Another example would be something like jetliners where there are nuanced differences, but more or less all commercial airliners look alike.
So kind of like the biological world where everything becomes a crab.
2025 Rail is up on Trek EU websites with all builds & prices, but the bike is still not released or shown anywhere else (no US/CAN prices/builds or review out).
So kind of like the biological world where everything becomes a crab.
Or like all gas powered cars (and trucks) ended up with turbo 4 cyl engines. Best configuration for the job (Edit: according to the product manager and bean-counters).
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of...
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of a product or system being most heavily valued by the consumer of the product. The more the underlying form needs to adhere to very rigid design criteria for an intended function, optimization will likely yield at most a handful and at least a single design that will win out. Straying from this "best" design will put you at a significant disadvantage, especially when the product itself is intended to do something more than just "look cool".
I'd argue we value performance more than anything in the mountain bike space hence the trend of things looking similar will probably continue (or intensify). While I don't think they'll be one singular design, I do think we're way past where we were in the early 2000s, where there were seemingly endless suspension and geometry configurations.
Don't believe me? Just look at other two wheel'd sports like off road moto, where most bikes follow similar lines, geomtery, and suspension layout. Another example would be something like jetliners where there are nuanced differences, but more or less all commercial airliners look alike.
Or like all gas powered cars (and trucks) ended up with turbo 4 cyl engines. Best configuration for the job (Edit: according to the product manager...
Or like all gas powered cars (and trucks) ended up with turbo 4 cyl engines. Best configuration for the job (Edit: according to the product manager and bean-counters).
Best configuration to do well on emissions and fuel mileage testing since the test allows them to stay off or low boost for most of the test cycle.
Funny Santa Cruz is like "VPP is holding us back on longer travel e-bikes, we have to move on" and Crestline's like "here's our 182mm VPP...
Funny Santa Cruz is like "VPP is holding us back on longer travel e-bikes, we have to move on" and Crestline's like "here's our 182mm VPP ebike!"
Curious if Cascade is willing to comment on the Cruz' take or if they're a little too close to home to do so.
I don't think there's anything about the Crestline, Hecker, or Bullit that ride poorly. From a personal perspective I'd go as far as to say I will likely prefer that set of bikes over the Vala. That is something that comes down to anti-rise. The one thing with shock tunnel bikes, though, is seat post length is limited.
Going back to why I might prefer those three VPP e-bikes. This mostly comes down to anti-rise. Horst link bikes pretty much always have low anti-rise numbers at all points of travel. I've come to prefer bikes where anti-rise starts up around 100% at top of travel and then drops off the map by bottom of travel. On lower angle trails it's not a big deal and I could go either way. On steeper stuff I'm not a fan though. This became most apparent to me when I was riding some steep rolls with decent traction on the Enduro back to back with some VPP bikes. Low anti-rise and active suspension is the hot marketing thing, but there's a fine line between that and chassis stability. I also happen to be of a height such that a 175 mm is about the max that's usable for me.
Interesting take- I'm kinda the opposite. I like seeing the convergence of designs and features. At this point companies have to sweat the details and provide...
Interesting take- I'm kinda the opposite. I like seeing the convergence of designs and features. At this point companies have to sweat the details and provide superior value to get business.
I want a reliable, good value that does what it's supposed to do... Don't care if the bike is different or rare.
Gonna agree with this, give me "boring" but good geo and kinematics and looks, but give me decent value and warranty. Obviously this would apply to...
Gonna agree with this, give me "boring" but good geo and kinematics and looks, but give me decent value and warranty. Obviously this would apply to a lot of the main brands, plenty of smaller players can do the niche stuff...
I mentioned the boring thing before. It wasn't meant to be comment on looks or how different a layout is, though homogenous looking bikes are boring too haha. It was more about the ride feel, the kinematics, wheel path, leverage ratio, how those are all combined. I've ridden 4 bar bikes that are really fun, responsive, fast, and provide good feedback without being harsh. My Norco Sight, the GT Force HP, the last few Rocky Mountains I've ridden, all great bikes, distinct from each other, and fun to ride. Where as the Canyon spectral and the 4 Bar stump jumpers (sorry spesh fans) have just felt a bit too muted or unresponsive to me. Shock tune, weight and other factors could have affected that I know, so I won't say that either are bad bikes.
2025 Rail is up on Trek EU websites with all builds & prices, but the bike is still not released or shown anywhere else (no US/CAN...
2025 Rail is up on Trek EU websites with all builds & prices, but the bike is still not released or shown anywhere else (no US/CAN prices/builds or review out).
My rides are middling quality at best.So that's me out. I'm glad they are built for exceptional handling, that must have been a difficult design meeting "right we are going for average handling, focus groups and the canteen staff have expressed a preference for medicrity in the handling department. They also were very keen on skimping on layup and bearings too, so were going to prioritize that as well". Who writes this horsesh1t?
Funny Santa Cruz is like "VPP is holding us back on longer travel e-bikes, we have to move on" and Crestline's like "here's our 182mm VPP...
Funny Santa Cruz is like "VPP is holding us back on longer travel e-bikes, we have to move on" and Crestline's like "here's our 182mm VPP ebike!"
Curious if Cascade is willing to comment on the Cruz' take or if they're a little too close to home to do so.
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO). I'm sure it rides exceptionally well for a crab-link though
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO)...
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO). I'm sure it rides exceptionally well for a crab-link though
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO)...
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO). I'm sure it rides exceptionally well for a crab-link though
Which is more weird since Trek usually have an inbetween M/L for most of their MTB model which would slot in nicely with a 470mm reach...
Which is more weird since Trek usually have an inbetween M/L for most of their MTB model which would slot in nicely with a 470mm reach in this case.
I always hear people complain their 470 ish reach bike is either to big or to small - which i often hear from Specilized/nukeproof etc owners who buy the s4/large... say its either to big or to small.
I don't think there's anything about the Crestline, Hecker, or Bullit that ride poorly. From a personal perspective I'd go as far as to say I...
I don't think there's anything about the Crestline, Hecker, or Bullit that ride poorly. From a personal perspective I'd go as far as to say I will likely prefer that set of bikes over the Vala. That is something that comes down to anti-rise. The one thing with shock tunnel bikes, though, is seat post length is limited.
Going back to why I might prefer those three VPP e-bikes. This mostly comes down to anti-rise. Horst link bikes pretty much always have low anti-rise numbers at all points of travel. I've come to prefer bikes where anti-rise starts up around 100% at top of travel and then drops off the map by bottom of travel. On lower angle trails it's not a big deal and I could go either way. On steeper stuff I'm not a fan though. This became most apparent to me when I was riding some steep rolls with decent traction on the Enduro back to back with some VPP bikes. Low anti-rise and active suspension is the hot marketing thing, but there's a fine line between that and chassis stability. I also happen to be of a height such that a 175 mm is about the max that's usable for me.
Wait, not a fan of VPP anti-rise dropping off the map or the consistent (low) anti-rise of Horst-link bikes?
DebonAir making a comeback?
Given that it's almost certainly a different main pivot position, it gives a clue that they're tweaking kinematics (most likely anti-squat) for every size. This is important because AS changes with wheelbase and with respect to the height of the centre of the sprung mass, which is obviously different for different sizes and different rider heights. Even if they might not have been able to make a meaningful difference to the geometry due to clearances, they've likely still made useful changes that help the different sizes perform similarly.
Just speculation!
Personal opinions aside, in most markets you'll see a convergence of design. This is especially true with a market that is heavily influenced by performance of a product or system being most heavily valued by the consumer of the product. The more the underlying form needs to adhere to very rigid design criteria for an intended function, optimization will likely yield at most a handful and at least a single design that will win out. Straying from this "best" design will put you at a significant disadvantage, especially when the product itself is intended to do something more than just "look cool".
I'd argue we value performance more than anything in the mountain bike space hence the trend of things looking similar will probably continue (or intensify). While I don't think they'll be one singular design, I do think we're way past where we were in the early 2000s, where there were seemingly endless suspension and geometry configurations.
Don't believe me? Just look at other two wheel'd sports like off road moto, where most bikes follow similar lines, geomtery, and suspension layout. Another example would be something like jetliners where there are nuanced differences, but more or less all commercial airliners look alike.
Alright Ill take it back. When you mention the comparison of other industries. We are spoiled. Im spoiled. Ill be quiet.
Don't take it back! You have a point! You'll still find plenty of interesting stuff out there, but you'll probably have to pay (a lot more) for it and it will get pushed more and more to the edges of the market. That's all.
Luckily with a higher CoG (taller riders) you usually get a longer wheelbase and the two effects kinda cancel eachouther out.
That stack height looks high, like it's at least 40mm, maybe 50.
Yup. Esp now that bikes are scaling better with size.
So kind of like the biological world where everything becomes a crab.
2025 Rail is up on Trek EU websites with all builds & prices, but the bike is still not released or shown anywhere else (no US/CAN prices/builds or review out).
https://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/rail-plus-high-powered-emtb/
Funny Santa Cruz is like "VPP is holding us back on longer travel e-bikes, we have to move on" and Crestline's like "here's our 182mm VPP ebike!"
Curious if Cascade is willing to comment on the Cruz' take or if they're a little too close to home to do so.
Or like all gas powered cars (and trucks) ended up with turbo 4 cyl engines. Best configuration for the job (Edit: according to the product manager and bean-counters).
Look how far forward the motor is on the Crestline bikes though.
Yeah crabs are basically the horst link bikes of the animal world. Everything eventually evolves to crab.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
Kinda how most modern cars look super similar. They are all using similar software to optimize drag, minimize lift, etc, so the outputs are similar
Best configuration to do well on emissions and fuel mileage testing since the test allows them to stay off or low boost for most of the test cycle.
Holla for the Vala at midnight.
I don't think there's anything about the Crestline, Hecker, or Bullit that ride poorly. From a personal perspective I'd go as far as to say I will likely prefer that set of bikes over the Vala. That is something that comes down to anti-rise. The one thing with shock tunnel bikes, though, is seat post length is limited.
Going back to why I might prefer those three VPP e-bikes. This mostly comes down to anti-rise. Horst link bikes pretty much always have low anti-rise numbers at all points of travel. I've come to prefer bikes where anti-rise starts up around 100% at top of travel and then drops off the map by bottom of travel. On lower angle trails it's not a big deal and I could go either way. On steeper stuff I'm not a fan though. This became most apparent to me when I was riding some steep rolls with decent traction on the Enduro back to back with some VPP bikes. Low anti-rise and active suspension is the hot marketing thing, but there's a fine line between that and chassis stability. I also happen to be of a height such that a 175 mm is about the max that's usable for me.
Still has the current gen AXS Reverb or was that just for the release pics?
I mentioned the boring thing before. It wasn't meant to be comment on looks or how different a layout is, though homogenous looking bikes are boring too haha. It was more about the ride feel, the kinematics, wheel path, leverage ratio, how those are all combined. I've ridden 4 bar bikes that are really fun, responsive, fast, and provide good feedback without being harsh. My Norco Sight, the GT Force HP, the last few Rocky Mountains I've ridden, all great bikes, distinct from each other, and fun to ride. Where as the Canyon spectral and the 4 Bar stump jumpers (sorry spesh fans) have just felt a bit too muted or unresponsive to me. Shock tune, weight and other factors could have affected that I know, so I won't say that either are bad bikes.
Wowzers, 490/495 mm reach in a large and 450/455 for a medium, maybe some people will love that but that feels like to large of a jump between sizes,.
My rides are middling quality at best.So that's me out.
I'm glad they are built for exceptional handling, that must have been a difficult design meeting "right we are going for average handling, focus groups and the canteen staff have expressed a preference for medicrity in the handling department. They also were very keen on skimping on layup and bearings too, so were going to prioritize that as well".
Who writes this horsesh1t?
Not to be too negative, but at first glance I feel like the main design priority was no Shimano motor (although the EP801 is great IMO). I'm sure it rides exceptionally well for a crab-link though
<scuttles off to trademark "Crab-Link">
Which is more weird since Trek usually have an inbetween M/L for most of their MTB model which would slot in nicely with a 470mm reach in this case.
Scuttles made me actually lol, family is looking at me weird now.
"It's a bike joke. About crabs. And marketing. And evolution."
I always hear people complain their 470 ish reach bike is either to big or to small - which i often hear from Specilized/nukeproof etc owners who buy the s4/large... say its either to big or to small.
side note, Trek are Trying to reduce SKU's.
Wait, not a fan of VPP anti-rise dropping off the map or the consistent (low) anti-rise of Horst-link bikes?
Consistent low anti rise is not something I like.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation