Round 2: People's Choice Award - Reality Redesigned by EdgeFactor

79 Comments

Score Time

flat4split (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:39)

Firstly I'd like to congratulate all the designers for getting things this far and for working so hard. Secondly, I don't wish to upset people, I just want to give honest thoughts for what I see so far. My opinion is that the seat post adapter looks the most finished product at the moment, but I-beams are not comfortable. I prefer Ti rails. After riding with derailleur and Rohloff gear hubs, I realise the importance and benefit of keeping the gears away from the elements. My Rohloff changes gear no matter what the conditions. Therefor, I like the gearbox concept the most and feel this brings great advantages to the mountain biker. The variable cone gearing is also a great concept and my only negative is that with a belt drive, the rear triangle has to open. This is the main reason I still run a standard chain on my Rohloff as I have yet to see a method of opening the rear triangle that offers similar strength to a none opening rear triangle. The footsie sounds good, but will still wear the tyre or the footsie, depending on materials used, as you don't stop without friction. I'm not sure about the claims made on the 350 DH frame giving confidence etc... as its only a CAD drawing at the moment and we know that top manufacturers design frames that they think will perform and are then slated by the media in comparison to others, so I would like to know more about this one to make a better decision. So overall, My fave idea is the gearbox concept. Again, well done to all contestants for getting thing so far along. Hard work indeed. Cheers!

bikeman69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 6:20)

Thanks for the input on the variable cassette. I have personally never ridden an internal gear hub, but I can completely agree with you that keeping your drive train away from the elements is very important when considering maintenance and reliability. I have great respect for the engineers behind these systems, however my goal was to make a simple design that could be installed and maintained by anyone. On the rare occasion that your Rohloff needs to be serviced, I could imagine it being a tedious process with so many moving pieces. It might even need to be sent to the factory for that?

My design could also be enclosed once installed, to help keep a clean drivetrain

I can also agree with you that a flaw in my design would be that the rear triangle would need to open. I was thinking that some type of latching removable belt could be an option that would fix this. Like a rubberized master link with a pin connected both ends, or a dovetail type joint.

thanks again for the input. If anyone else has any questions id love to answer them

flat4split (Apr 4, 2012 at 10:12)

Hey bikeman69, thanks for the reply. The Rohloff does need to be sent back to the factory if it stops working, but apparently they only stop working if you never change the oil which should be done once a year or every 3000 miles or so. When I researched the hub, I found that they had never had a malfunction apart from if the oil was'nt changed. The hubs are good for 100,000 miles plus.Which is the rest of my peddling life and then some I would imagine. Rohloff were looking for customers who had generated 150,000 to 200,000 miles on a single hub so that they could award them a gold plated one apparently. I remember seeing it on their website before I bought one, two or so years ago. I've changed the oil twice now and I'm due another one now. I love the gearbox concept and also your Idea of the variable cone drive. Audi use it on a prototype or production car if I remember correctly. Would we always be peddling with the same force? It's just that sometimes we might want a lower ratio for a period of time to give the legs muscles a break, or maybe when life is not such a rush. Would the ratio be adjustable for different leg powers, different people. Just a thought.

flat4split (Apr 4, 2012 at 12:31)

Forget the last thought. I've just looked again and realised you've already stated that the rider adjusts the ratio via a cable. Sorry!

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:58)

hey! check out 3d pics of the Armada! Smile

www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

bikeman69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 21:01)

the irony of your name... no relation for the record

[Reply]

Honus (Apr 3, 2012 at 15:34)

While the Thompson I-Beam adapter is by far the most practical entry I'd have go with the Electronic Terrain Predictive Suspension System design. It's far and away the most future tech entry and it would actually work. Cannondale has already shown the valving technology exists with their Simon suspension. The holdups would be cost, weight and implementation since you would have to bring the suspension fork/damper manufacturers on board.

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 19:15)

Thanks man, I'm glad someone brought up Cannondale, because I really like what they did with Simon. Their implementation seems to be an acceleration hard wired to the damper unit, which 'opens' it up in real time when certain loads are applied, which is limited by requiring ridiculously fast latency. My design is a touch different by analyzing a recent window of data using different methods, which reduces the need for low latency hardware and software, which would greatly lower cost.

Honus (Apr 3, 2012 at 19:32)

Yep- that's exactly what their system is. They used a hard wired optical linear encoder and accelerometer. I'd be curious to know what they used for a processor and what the sample rates were.

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 19:54)

I read that they are sampling every 2ms, and the accelerometer is an Analog Devices ADXL78, but I am not sure about the processor.

Honus (Apr 3, 2012 at 22:38)

500 samples/sec- that's really not anything crazy.

wdm0006 (Apr 4, 2012 at 15:00)

Yeah, that surprised me too. I would have guessed that they way they seem to be doing it, they would have to sample much faster.

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:59)

Armada Cad files: www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

carrottop596 (Apr 3, 2012 at 8:56)

Hi everyone, here is a link to some more images of the derailleur-guide, including some exploded views and how it looks on a bike carrottop596.pinkbike.com/album/Reality-Redesigned . Let me know if you have any questions and I will try my best to answer them.

drew-ross (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:59)

can you explain to me exactly why this design is superior to other devices currently on the market? it seems that you have added many small pieces and complicated the simple task of keeping the chain in place. If you can enlighten me on the subject I would be very grateful.

Protour (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:02)

Progressive and concept designs should be about getting rid of derailleurs, not modifying them.

crohnsy (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:38)

How is this better than a two ring guide and an XTR or XX derailleur? Seems very complicated with the many small parts

GabrielDugas (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:42)

less piece than a derailleur + chain guide for sure (have you ever seen an exploded view of a front derailleur?) + less weigth and i think it's a really good idea since to chain ring guide are not super good actually (per experience...)

pperini (Apr 3, 2012 at 13:14)

"takes the rear triangle and throws out the complications of symmetry by using a simple single-sided swingarm"

sorry, but since when is symmetry a problem?? and what DO is a problem is the lack of stiffness! and an expensive hub just to adapt the brake! and on your design u also forgot to sow us where do u mount the brake caliper! how are u supposed to have a rolling chain AND a brake caliper on one side?? another thing...u created a "vpp" swingarm and u forgot to connect the front part of the triangle (next to the pivots) which makes it even less stiff...

another thing, since u talked about symmetry, i just think of something right now:.....so, on one side u have everything...its not that simple to just put the brake behind the cassete...doing so, u push the cassete outwards, wich will not align properly to the crankset...ok, so u can leave the cassete aligned, and put the disc more "inside" the bike...but the nxt problem is that by doing so, u also push the whole wheel offset! in order the align the rear wheel to the front wheel, u would have to use some crazy spokes positioning....OR, u just use a very small cassete.....but i still would like to know how u pretend to position the brake caliper in there..

wich is actually easy i see now...but then there is a new problem...not only we need special hubs, but as far as i can see, also special brake discs right?!...

carrottop596 (Apr 3, 2012 at 14:16)

Keeping the chain in place is a simple task until you decide you want to be able to change gears. There is not a product on the market that can stabilize the chain in the horizontal and vertical direction both above the chainring and below it unless you are satisfied with running just one chainring. With the derailleur guide you can do stabilize the chain while running two chainrings. XX and XRT derailleurs do not have the ability to guide the chain on the underside of the chainring. This means that any vibrations carried through the bottom of the chain will be able to make the chain skip, jump, or fall off. Bashrings are great, but they only prevent the chain from falling out of the top gear, they do not prevent the chain from skipping, unwanted shifting, or falling off the smaller chainring. The Derailleur-Guide combines a chain guide with a derailleur, making it incredibly difficult for the chain to fall off, skip, etc. but also allows you to shift between two chainrings. It weighs about the same as a SRAM XX front derailleur and less than a Straightline Chain Guard.

crohnsy (Apr 3, 2012 at 14:31)

carrottop596, Have you ever heard of the e13 TRS+ thats a dual ring guide with bash or the Hemi 3R.

How does the derailleur portion work? I don't see where a cable connects to move the "derailleur" portion What is the projected weight of this device?

How does it shift? it looks like it only moves in the horizontal plane. That won't make for XTR or XX level shifting... Not by a long shot.

carrottop596 (Apr 3, 2012 at 15:10)

I have not heard of the TRS+ before, but from what I can find it does not have the ability to shift.

On the derailleur-guide the cable attaches on the linkage (the black piece connecting the two rollers) close to where the return spring attaches. If you look through the pictures, you will see that the derailleur-guide does not just move in and out, but the guides that the chain go through will get farther apart when in the larger ring and closer together in the smaller ring (hence the springs on the guides and the cables attaching them to the rollers)

Also, the shifting is more complex than just moving in and out, the rollers make it so that the top of the chain shifts first (overshifting slightly so that the chain will catch) then the bottom part of the derailleur-guide will swing out after the chain has had a chance to catch and fully shift onto the other ring.

As it is designed right now, the projected weight is around 250g. I misspoke before, I meant to say that the weight is slightly more than a chainguide, but much less than any combination of chainguide and derailleur. Also, the version submitted is not optimized for weight and I am sure that there is 30-50g that can be cut without affecting the strength of the part.

Shellemonster (Apr 3, 2012 at 15:33)

pperini, the tagline about symmetry is just a fun way to describe the design. It is something of an inside joke beyond that, but I'm sorry you seem to be offended by it. This design is a first draft, something that wouldn't be presented to the public if a company was developing it because all the problems have not yet been worked out. You and others are providing feedback that will be addressed if this were to go any further into design. As with any radically different design there are many things that must be taken into account and adjusted, such as the spacing issues you discuss, before physical testing begins. Beyond that, on my page there is a list of comments about the design and proposed changes. In that list I say that I ran out of time to to develop the connecting/stiffening bar on the rear end. I did not want it to be a simple block when the rest of the tubes are so flowy and that takes time to model.

coops2011 (Apr 3, 2012 at 15:42)

if the footsie doesnt win make it any way! ill buy one!

carrottop596 (Apr 3, 2012 at 18:40)

I played around a little bit with weight optimization and removed some excess material in non load bearing areas. Using FEA, the changes I made will not affect the structural integrity of the derailleur-guide. I got it down to 190 grams, but still believe it has much room for improvement. This would make it lighter than any standard chainguide from Straitline, DRM, e13, etc.

pperini (Apr 4, 2012 at 9:54)

@ Shellemonster, i am of course not offended by anything..being an engineer myself i am right the opposite of that...i was making so many critics to it exactly because your design got my attention...and like all engineers u start to think about it, find problems and resolve them...i like that design...i just dont see much potential on it...i mean, after cannondale made the Lefty forks, im pretty sure ur not the first that wants to make a one sided swingarm..i myself already had this idea millions of years ago..im also pretty sure many people will be reading this and thinking "me too!"...but there is also a reason why nobody has done that before...and its simple...in order to work, the swing will hab to be sooo robust that it will be just as heavy if not heavier then a normal system...and by using exotic materials and parts (hub, disc) it will also be veeery expensive...which is a shame...

Jammers91 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:03)

what id like to know is on the single sided swing arm how you would place a brake calliper so close to the spokes while keeping the back wheel and gears in line ..and how a far would the calliper have to be mounted away from the frame looks like the brake adaptor would have to be as thick as a cassette ..which I'm sure is not ideal?

[Reply]

Patrick9-32 (Apr 3, 2012 at 8:54)

The little stuff, the footsie and the I beam adapter are great ideas. They also have the strongest chance of making it to market as the investment capital is the smallest.

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:19)

That may be the case, but my understanding of the ethos of the contest was to not focus on the ease of manufacture, but rather the quality of the innovation. Reality 'Redesigned', as opposed to Reality 'Slightly Changed or Adapted'. That certainly shaped the direction and the motivation behind my submission.

MTBmadness12 (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:28)

i would LOVE a footsie i just wrecked my tire braking :s

stinky-deluxe-smith (Apr 3, 2012 at 14:00)

and shoes, i think that will win as it is a very good idea ... a brake for brakeless

PLC07 (Apr 3, 2012 at 14:38)

I'd much rather see the gearbox or cvc win. As far as I am concerned, they're the only ones suggesting an option to solve a problem most of us have. I could easily do without all the other propositions.

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 20:00)

Armada Cad files: www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:34)

For those interested, K3ano has been asking some really interesting questions about the technical aspects of the Electronic Terrain Predictive Suspension in the comments. It is a difficult design to show quickly in one picture because it is mostly a mathematical model and corresponding computer algorithms, but I think the exchange has done alot to clarify the ins and outs of it.

edgefactor.pinkbike.com/blog/RR-Peoples-Choice-Award-Electronic-Terrain-Predictive-Suspension.html

[Reply]

addictx (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:10)

crazy-canuk sorry man my mistake its not really the flow but the braking forces its contradicting its a sweet design but just looking at the braces it looks like its going to restrict the top too members from moving thus causing the braking forces to interfere with the suspension itself i think its really awesome because it def. helps stiffen it up but i dont see how they could allow movement.

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:38)

Did you check out the video link I put up showing it moving in its travel. Or are you talking about the traveling of braking forces through the suspension linkages?

[Reply]

PHeller (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:22)

One thing I'm surprised by is the lack of different wheel dimensions. Considering the dramatic impact (positive and negative) the 29" wheel has had on the market, I'm surprised we didn't see any completely adjustable frames that allowed for the use of a 24, 26, 27.5, and 29 inch wheel.

Taane (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:38) (Below Threshold) show comment

that would be stupid.

[Reply]

JonathanTeas (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:55)

these are some great designs and we are privalaged to even have the opprotunity to see and put our opinion in on their designs. Great work, I really like the Occoms whip they really put the most thought and work into their design. Great stuff!

EdgeFactor (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:13)

totally! We feel so privileged to have shared this experience with the Reality Redesigned contestants. They have boldly submitted their design ideas for not only top experts in the industry to judge, but also for the WORLD to critique.. not an easy thing to do. I'm really proud of them. - Larissa, Edge Factor

[Reply]

cdub162 (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:56)

Occams whip - chain would be way to close to the disc rotor. Chain lube and brake rotors don't like each other.

[Reply]

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:25)

For those interested, K3ano has been asking some really good technical questions about the Terrain Predictive Suspension, and I am doing my best to answer them in a reasonable way. It is a difficult concept to explain in simple terms, but there is alot of information in the comments that will shed some light on the details of the design.

edgefactor.pinkbike.com/blog/RR-Peoples-Choice-Award-Electronic-Terrain-Predictive-Suspension.html

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:47)

sorry, didn't mean to do this twice.

[Reply]

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:19)

Hello pinkbike, Here is a link to a short 20 second video showing the suspension movement of the DF-350. Should help to clear up some confusion or question people have about the design. Feel free to ask questions. I will answer them as best I can.

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:45)

Sorry here is the link www.pinkbike.com/video/249081

[Reply]

ChainsawGeoff (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:32)

I really like the idea behind the gearbox frame. It makes sense in so many ways and doesn't throw in a radically new suspension design. The DF-350 for example looks pretty cool, but I get the feeling that it has too much going on for it's own good.

[Reply]

addictx (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:52)

on the df 350 like its a sick frame but the linkage between the two arms on the rear contradicts the whole suspension flow. other that that its sick! the footsie is my pick tho

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:53)

Just curious, what do you mean by the two connecting rods contradicting the suspension flow?
www.pinkbike.com/video/249081

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 20:00)

Armada Cad files: www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

EdgeFactor (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:04)

Here we are! Round 2 of the People's Choice Award. Vote on the Top 10 to determine who makes it to the Top 5 next week!!!
Exciting Big Grin

[Reply]

Jimbur (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:34)

The df350 is overly complicated. Pivots within the rear triangle? Why? The square top tube with a bend in it lends itself to easy bending as well.

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:45)

To answer your question about the extra pivots, I wanted to achieve a rearward biased wheel path and extremely low center of gravity with good braking characteristics. For me the goal was to do this without the use of a floating brake and to design an entirely new linkage for downhill. Far more time was put into the linkage design, dynamics, and geometry than the rest of the frame as that is really where I wanted to do something new. As for the square top tube, the compressive force and bending moment it sees want it to bend 'up and down' rather than a twisting motion. So in actual fact the square tubing is stronger under bending stresses.

[Reply]

Protour (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:08)

If the footsie were a little longer you could also sit on it.

epavichthesavage Plus (Apr 3, 2012 at 13:19)

ha then it would be the "buttsie"
I'm here all week

[Reply]

deeeight Plus (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:44)

Occam's whip would need a tapered axle the same way as a lefty fork does.

saturnine (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:49)

not to mention the rotor is too far inboard that it would put the caliper rather far in and lose rigidity and strength. the rotor should ultimately be placed before the smallest cog

Shellemonster (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:40)

That is something to consider in a future revision, this is just a first draft for me. Thanks for the feedback!

deeeight Plus (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:43)

Oh worse than that...because a proprietary hub will be needed that includes the freehub mechanism and a tapered axle capability, it'll likely either be limited on the smallest cog size if the cassette is placed as the image suggests, or you'll have to reverse the cog layout (which means proprietary cogset also, as ramps and teeth profiles of existings one are meant for right side clockwise drive direction of the chain) to get to anything smaller than the widest point of the tapered axle clears. This is the primary reason why all existing single-side rear stay/swingarm bikes on the market today (motorcycle or bicycle) use single cog chain drives or shaft drives.

crohnsy (Apr 3, 2012 at 11:37)

What is complicated about symmetry? How can this frame maintain any rear end stiffness through its travel? What kind of bearing lifespan would you expect from the pivots? Seems like you would be changing bearings weekly...

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 20:00)

Armada Cad files: www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

bikemaniac72 (Apr 3, 2012 at 9:37)

Isn't an ibeam seatpost lighter and cheaper than a thompson? Plus it has more versatility...

boylagz (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:12)

For those who already have a Thomson, like myself, this is awesome. Only need the adapter instead of buying another seatpost. I love this idea.

bikemaniac72 (Apr 3, 2012 at 14:23)

Isn't having an ibeam all about saving weight, though? You can get a Kore Race ibeam post for under $40 that is only 205g. Thats probably lighter than your Thompson already, even without the added weight of the adapter, and I dont imagine the adapter being much cheaper than that.

[Reply]

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:58)

Hey everyone here are some sick pictures of the Armada in Autocad!:
www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

labman82 (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:41)

all mountain gearbox? defiantly a good idea if made well, and alot smaller than that one pictured

[Reply]

nicaliperti (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:20)

DF-350

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:59)

www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

chris44 (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:01)

Do a whip on the occames whip and your bike will be done..

flat4split (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:17)

Only if you land with the rear end still hangin out. Which is not a good whip. Saying that, I feel the lefty design is a very niche market and this may be the same. I would'nt trust it either buddy, so I know what you mean. Land it wrong and it's done for. Not strong enough.

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:59)

www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

cedrico (Apr 5, 2012 at 19:29)

bikebro do you have your design on a program like linkage to know the leverage ratio and all that? or is your frame just a model?

[Reply]

Bikebro69 (Apr 3, 2012 at 18:27)

:3 lolz

[Reply]

boylagz (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:13)

Dat Whip scares me.

Bikebro69 (Apr 4, 2012 at 19:58)

www.sashaswebsite.com/archive/armada.htm

[Reply]

nicaliperti (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:20)

whoever designed the dh-350 must have a devinci wilson fetiche !

crazy-canuck (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:37)

Just so everyone is aware, the Wilson was the last thing on my mind when designing the DF-350, and it wasn't untill well into the design the the general resemblance started to occur to me. That said the only true similarity is the silhouette of the two.

[Reply]

Below threshold threads are hidden

drew-ross (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:04)

To be honest, i'm actually quite disappointed in this whole competition. There are very few designs here that I feel have much merit, or potential to become a viable product. There is very little innovation in any of these designs, and many are based on existing product already on the market. I was really hoping to see something new and innovative that could really have an impact on the cycling industry. As of right now, the only real product I can see making it to market would be the Thomson post I-beam adapter. I myself would actually purchase one of these, and I know there are plenty of others out there that would get their hands on this. Also, the predictive suspension is interesting, and I could see that going somewhere in the hands of the right people. but the technology isn't quite there yet.

wdm0006 (Apr 3, 2012 at 10:19)

To respond to the suspension comments, the tech is absolutely there, there are active suspensions in tons of cars. It's actually a relatively simple algorithm, that can be evaluated very quickly, and quickly translated into a % damping value. From there it is just a matter of integrating a simple servo or actuator into already existing fork platforms to change the damping.

The cleanest way to do this is probably to modify the crown. I actually have been talking with a few different groups at engineering programs around the south about making some crowns on rapid prototyping devices to have a proof of concept and to do some hardware-in-the-loop testing. It may be difficult to build a good user interface in a head-unit, but from an engineering point of view, there is really no need for a head-unit once the initial values are set (minimum and maximum damping values, and slew rate).

The technicality of it, and the software/electronic based nature of the system may make it seem more out-there than it is, but it is a relatively simple system, and I think would probably be easier to make or prototype than any of the frames here.

EdgeFactor (Apr 3, 2012 at 12:04)

Hey drew-ross,
The Reality Redesigned contestants are all students. Some of them are high school students and all of them have put hours and days into creating their designs. This contest is all about thinking outside of the box and imagining new possibilities. But it's also about revealing what it takes to bring a design from an IDEA to a 3D prototype! Many people think they have "Million dollar ideas" but sit on them forever, and never actually design what they think could be an awesome product.
These contestants had an idea and went for it! For most of them, if not all, this is their first time fully designing anything. Not a bad first project by any means!! I consider them to be the creative leaders of the next generation's manufacturing and engineering workforce.
- Larissa, Edge Factor

[Reply]