Enduro/AM - The Weight Game

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Enduro/AM - The Weight Game
Author Message
Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 9:11 Quote
mtbman1980 wrote:
SileTzar wrote:
R-M-R wrote:


This is a redesign. I can't comment on whether something more visually obvious is in the works, but this counts as a redesign.

Then not so much a redesign as a tweak of the existing design. Hard to get excited about a new bike that looks exactly like the old one.

Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it rides the same.New kinematics can make a bike ride completely differently

True, true.

But again, it looks the same lol

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 9:43 Quote
mixmastamikal wrote:
They are going to sell so many of those bikes. I can tell you that right now. It looks pretty damn impressive. I won't be getting one but I can see why many will.

The old one sold well and was a complete pile. This bike looks the part and the pricing is good. Couple that with a bike boom and I bet they’re sold out till next year.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 9:47 Quote
Circe wrote:
mixmastamikal wrote:
They are going to sell so many of those bikes. I can tell you that right now. It looks pretty damn impressive. I won't be getting one but I can see why many will.

The old one sold well and was a complete pile. This bike looks the part and the pricing is good. Couple that with a bike boom and I bet they’re sold out till next year.

I'll beat you.. The base level black bikes are already sold out from pre-orders...unless there is a shipment enroute that our dealer site isn't showing.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 9:54 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
Published anti-squat numbers are almost always garbage, anyway, since it can change a great deal - from 100%ish to over 200%, for example - depending on the sprocket combination and, to a lesser extent, assumed centre of mass location. The former is rarely published and the latter I've seen only once or twice ever, so anti-squat claims are essentially worthless.

In this case, without creating one's own simulation, the smoking gun is the axle path. Notice how rapidly it moves rearward - especially when compared to the Enduro, which already has high anti-squat. That's a whole lotta anti-squat - not to mention a moderately progressive motion ratio curve - from a company that held fast for decades on minimal anti-squat and nearly flat motion ratio curves.

So worth getting in your opinion, looks like what I’ve always wanted from a Specialized. Only poor thing is the shock yoke

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 11:41 Quote
SileTzar wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
This is a redesign. I can't comment on whether something more visually obvious is in the works, but this counts as a redesign.
Then not so much a redesign as a tweak of the existing design. Hard to get excited about a new bike that looks exactly like the old one.

1. If an existing design is good, is a visual redesign intrinsically better?

2. Extreme redesigns discard considerable R&D that went into an existing model. Sometimes that's necessary because it's become clear a different configuration would be better, but it often means a whole new learning curve for stress concentrations and manufacturing issues.

3. How much of the appeal of a bike how it how it looks and how much is how it rides?

Two bikes can both "look like a Session", yet ride very differently. If the appeal of a new bike is the excitement of something that looks new and fresh, then so be it; I don't share such a perspective, but I can understand it and I'll gladly sell you the same bike with a new look every few years! This is especially appealing for bike companies, as it's a lot easier to just draw sexy new CAD pictures than do actual R&D - and many companies do this! Many companies just copy the geometry, kinematics, and key features of their competitors, hire an industrial designer or two to draw something that looks like a prop from a sci-fi movie, and ask their Asian factory to figure out how to make it strong enough.

There's a reason so many bikes look like a Session: it's one of the most efficient structural configurations and represents convergent evolution. Similarly, we're going to see a lot of bikes adopt the layout of Giant's Maestro. Banshee and Pivot have recently made the switch, but bonus points to Giant for using a pivot axle as the lower shock mount.

Imagine how disappointed many people would be if a "new" bike was exactly the same, except for a highly refined material and lay-up that showed no visual differences. It would be a meaningful improvement, but invisible - how boring! On that note, imagine how creative road bike product managers and marketers have to be to convince people to buy new bikes!


bikerboywill wrote:
So worth getting in your opinion, looks like what I’ve always wanted from a Specialized.

There's a lot more to a bike than kinematics, but it's a big step in the right direction.

As with any bike, pricing is the main component of the "worth getting" equation and I'd rather an aluminum frame that's a pound heavier and a grand cheaper. Better yet, go consumer-direct and knock a further grand off the price.

Shame to lose the extra large SWAT box with supplemental bladder with an aluminum frame, though a person can carry the same water volume with a 3.5" bottle.


bikerboywill wrote:
Only poor thing is the shock yoke

Not a fan of yokes?

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 11:58 Quote
Just from my very limited engineering brain it can’t be a good thing to put an extended lever on a shock where the only thing that stops it pivoting around the shock bolt is the bushes.

Surely a frame that puts less side loading on a shock (e.g. a session) is way better for the health of the shock and suspension performance?

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 12:45 Quote
Well typically on a yoke the end of the shock connected to the yoke is turned 90 degrees, which would eliminate a lot of the side loading. Not all of it because theres still frictionfrom the yoke clamping it, but much better than the original specialized yoke bikes that were hard bolted in so all forces were transmitted to the shock.

As long as the bearings on the yoke still spin fine and the shock eyelet is rotated 90 degrees, the extra forces shouldn’t be drastically higher.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 12:55 Quote
It's true a yoke can create more bending loads on the shock, but how worried should we be?

Theory - General:
• Designs that use yokes can cost more and weight more than without a yoke. Surely there must be some benefit.
• Many bike designers are not fools. If a design flaw is so obvious, it is reasonable to expect them to see it and correct it.

Theory - Engineering:
• Modern yokes use shock pivots that are 90° to one other, allowing the shock to move on two axes.
• All frames flex. If the shock were located in the same place driven directly from the seatstays, the situation would be no better than a yoke without the 90° rotated mounts, so the yoke isn't necessarily the root cause of a vulnerable design.

Observation:
• There have been some yoke-driven designs that have caused problems. These were usually on bikes without the 90° offset between pivots. In some cases, the shocks used extra-rigid mounts to the yoke, such as the Stumpjumper introduced in 2010.
• Shocks on frames that use yokes often do not fail prematurely, suggesting the design is not intrinsically flawed.
• When a shock wears excessively quickly on a bike with a yoke, the yoke pivot bearings are often in poor condition. Even if these bearings failed more quickly than ideal, this is mostly a user error.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 13:28 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
It's true a yoke can create more bending loads on the shock, but how worried should we be?

Theory - General:
• Designs that use yokes can cost more and weight more than without a yoke. Surely there must be some benefit.
• Many bike designers are not fools. If a design flaw is so obvious, it is reasonable to expect them to see it and correct it.

Theory - Engineering:
• Modern yokes use shock pivots that are 90° to one other, allowing the shock to move on two axes.
• All frames flex. If the shock were located in the same place driven directly from the seatstays, the situation would be no better than a yoke without the 90° rotated mounts, so the yoke isn't necessarily the root cause of a vulnerable design.

Observation:
• There have been some yoke-driven shocks that have caused problems. These were usually on bikes without the 90° offset between pivots. In some cases, the shocks used extra-rigid mounts to the yoke, such as the Stumpjumper introduced in 2010.
• Shocks on frames that use yokes often do not fail prematurely, suggesting the design is not intrinsically flawed.
• When a shock wears excessively quickly on a bike with a yoke, the yoke pivot bearings are often in poor condition. Even if these bearings failed more quickly than ideal, this is mostly a user error.

Very interesting explanation! There are suspension brands who do not claim their coil shocks are yoke compatible, due to bushing overlap. Eg. the original Push 11.6, current Fox X2 Coil, etc...

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 13:46 Quote
And credit to Ibis for, as far as I know, being the first bike to use 90° rotated shock pivots.

My experience has been that yoke bearings are often embarrassingly undersized - some were worthy of a Zoolander "What is this, a bearing for ants?!" - and quickly fail, becoming sloppy and loading the shock off-axis.

It's true some shocks are less able to handle off-axis loading. They could just use spherical bearings and quit whining, but it's between their engineers and accountants to determine whether that's worthwhile.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 14:52 Quote
That’s the word I was looking for, bending....

With a yoke you are tripling the length from the last bush in the shock to the link of the bike meaning much higher bending forces on the whole shock. Spherical bearings wouldn’t make a difference for that specific force? Although I do think all frames should uses them at one end of the shock to stop twisting forces

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 15:10 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
SileTzar wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
This is a redesign. I can't comment on whether something more visually obvious is in the works, but this counts as a redesign.
Then not so much a redesign as a tweak of the existing design. Hard to get excited about a new bike that looks exactly like the old one.

1. If an existing design is good, is a visual redesign intrinsically better?

2. Extreme redesigns discard considerable R&D that went into an existing model. Sometimes that's necessary because it's become clear a different configuration would be better, but it often means a whole new learning curve for stress concentrations and manufacturing issues.

3. How much of the appeal of a bike how it how it looks and how much is how it rides?

Two bikes can both "look like a Session", yet ride very differently. If the appeal of a new bike is the excitement of something that looks new and fresh, then so be it; I don't share such a perspective, but I can understand it and I'll gladly sell you the same bike with a new look every few years! This is especially appealing for bike companies, as it's a lot easier to just draw sexy new CAD pictures than do actual R&D - and many companies do this! Many companies just copy the geometry, kinematics, and key features of their competitors, hire an industrial designer or two to draw something that looks like a prop from a sci-fi movie, and ask their Asian factory to figure out how to make it strong enough.

There's a reason so many bikes look like a Session: it's one of the most efficient structural configurations and represents convergent evolution. Similarly, we're going to see a lot of bikes adopt the layout of Giant's Maestro. Banshee and Pivot have recently made the switch, but bonus points to Giant for using a pivot axle as the lower shock mount.

Imagine how disappointed many people would be if a "new" bike was exactly the same, except for a highly refined material and lay-up that showed no visual differences. It would be a meaningful improvement, but invisible - how boring! On that note, imagine how creative road bike product managers and marketers have to be to convince people to buy new bikes!


bikerboywill wrote:
So worth getting in your opinion, looks like what I’ve always wanted from a Specialized.

There's a lot more to a bike than kinematics, but it's a big step in the right direction.

As with any bike, pricing is the main component of the "worth getting" equation and I'd rather an aluminum frame that's a pound heavier and a grand cheaper. Better yet, go consumer-direct and knock a further grand off the price.

Shame to lose the extra large SWAT box with supplemental bladder with an aluminum frame, though a person can carry the same water volume with a 3.5" bottle.


bikerboywill wrote:
Only poor thing is the shock yoke

Not a fan of yokes?

1. Yes. You could put an angleset in an old Stumpjumper and it wouldn't be a new bike. Oversimplification of course.
2. Not my concern, as it's not as if we're experiencing massive cost reduction on account of Specialized R&D reusing an existing design
3. Most would say 50/50 but they'd lie, I say 70/30, otherwise we'd see more Polygons or Ellsworths or Oranges with Trust forks.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 15:50 Quote
Anyone else's bearing on the their trunion mount shock seem to wear extremely quickly? I have aprox 700km of riding on my warden and they are definitely feeling notchy already.

Posted: Oct 7, 2020 at 15:52 Quote
whattheheel wrote:
Fatty....
that's definitely a possibility...


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.022089
Mobile Version of Website