Back to the Future: Rotwild RDH P1

Feb 22, 2017
by Matt Wragg  





Rotwild is the epitome of the niche, German mountain bike company, in many ways. They have always plowed their own furrow. Back in 1996 when they were little more than two automotive engineering students with heads full of ideas, they set their stall out with this bike—the RDH1 concept bike. Sadly, this bike never made it to production for a whole host of reasons, but as a view of what they thought a mountain bike could be, it will surely still resonate with many people today, 20 years later…



Sadly this bike never got beyond this stage and their first production bikes were far more restrained affairs.
Concept might be a more fitting title for this than prototype...

Surely SRAM still have the blueprints to this somewhere in Schweinfurt
Surely SRAM still have the blueprints to this somewhere in Schweinfurt?

If we are to nit-pick it s not clear whether an internally-geared hib and an exteranl electronic controller would help to reduce the unsprung mass at the rear wheel.
If we are to nit-pick, it's not clear whether an internally-geared hub and an external electronic controller would help to reduce the unsprung mass at the rear wheel.

Sachs now SRAM since their merger have been making internally geared hubs for decades - but the technology has never really gained widerspread acceptance in mountain biking for one reason or another.
Sachs (now SRAM, since their merger) have been making internally geared hubs for decades—but the technology has never really gained widespread acceptance in mountain biking for one reason or another.

They were keen on the idea of disc brakes although these Sachs brakes never really cught on. This was also a time before standardised brake mounts - so check out the custom mounting solution.
They were keen on the idea of disc brakes, at least at the front, although these Sachs brakes never really caught on. This was also a time before standardised brake mounts—so check out the custom mounting solution.

These brake boosters were one of ADP Engineering s original product. For those too young to have ridden with Magura rims brakes at the time the brakes were too strong for the frames so they would flex inwards and deform as you braked. To counter this you could mount a brake booster to reinforce your frame.
These brake boosters were one of ADP Engineering's original products. For those too young to have ridden with Magura rims brakes, at the time the brakes were too strong for the frames, so the stays would flex outwards as you braked. To counter this, you could mount a brake booster to reinforce your frame.

This carbon fork never got beyond this concept stage as much as there are probably people out there today who would love to plug a carbon dual-crown fork into their bike. Although it is worth noting that despite massive advances in carbon since this was conceived fork manufacturers have not found a better material than magnesium for the task and carbon has never really caught on.
This carbon fork never got beyond this concept stage, but this was a fully working fork, although these days it is pretty much solid, it hasn't stood the test of time too well. It is worth noting that, despite massive advances in carbon since this was conceived, fork manufacturers have not found a better material than magnesium for the task and carbon has never really caught on.

Minaturisation of electronics was still in its infancy in 1996 - you just need to compare a computer of the time to an iphone to understand the advances. With a modern full suspension bike this placement would be problematic but with a URT the rear triangle is static so this layout would be fine.
Miniaturization of electronics was still in its infancy in 1996—you just need to compare a computer of the time to an iPhone to understand the advances. With a modern full suspension bike this placement would be problematic, but with a URT the rear triangle is static, so this layout would be fine.

Another advance since this bike was conceived is the carbon belt drive. These are standard timing belts from a car which would work ok for a little while but out in the real world they simply wouldn t have been durable enough.
Another advance since this bike was conceived is the carbon belt drive. These are standard timing belts from a car, which would work OK for a little while, but out in the real world, they simply wouldn't have been durable enough.

They constructed a special chainring to accomodate the belt and mounted it to a standard Raceface crank.
They constructed a special chainring to accommodate the belt and mounted it to a standard Race Face crank.

Even today that shifter does look pretty cool a very clean minimal design.
Even today that shifter does look pretty cool. A very clean, minimal design.

One finger braking Forget it. You d need your whole hand with these brakes.
One finger braking? Forget it. You'd need your whole hand with these brakes.

One of the few standard components on the bike was Rockshox s Super Deluxe rear shock.
One of the few standard components on the bike was Rockshox's Super Deluxe shock.

While this may look normal now internal cable routing was virtually unheard of in 1996. Also this angle should give those too young to remember URTs a better idea of how they worked - the rear triangle was a solid piece that pivoted just ahead of the chainring. The problem with these is that the drivetrain was constantly moving under the rider which made for a horrific pedalling experience. Also the unsprung mass was incredible - you also have the cranks included in that weight with this design.
While this may look normal now, internal cable routing was virtually unheard of in 1996. Also, this angle should give those too young to remember URTs a better idea of how they worked - the rear triangle was a solid piece that pivoted just ahead of the chainring. The problem with these is that the drivetrain was constantly moving under the rider, which made for a horrific pedaling experience. Also, the unsprung mass was incredible - you also have the cranks included in that weight with this design.



92 Comments

  • 76 1
 I just imagine how it would have been back in 1996: Being out for a ride and someone with this bike shows up. I would have welcomed him on planet earth and asked for a flight.
  • 5 33
flag RedRedRe (Feb 23, 2017 at 4:26) (Below Threshold)
 you oviously were not around then... this would have been considered the mix between a german tourist bike and a mtb. Which is exactly what it is.
  • 25 0
 I wonder what happens when this bike hits 88 MPH? I think there is a flux capacitor in that black box somewhere.
  • 38 1
 "While this may look normal now, internal cable routing was virtually unheard of in 1996"

Clearly a downside to an article written by someon only 34 is missing out on a whole decade when internal cable routing was everywhere in mountain biking. My first mountain bike in 1987 had it, and that was a low end model which had trickled the feature down from higher end bikes. It was around even earlier for road bikes.
  • 7 0
 Remember the GT bikes with the fold under the top tube to put the cables in?

I can't remember the name of it but I bet it was cool sounding.
  • 15 0
 @jaame: Groove Tube Smile
  • 15 0
 Agree! Klein frames are work of art.
  • 5 1
 Yeah, the writer of the arthicle is clearly missing the knowdlege to back up many things written in this arthicle. Richard Cunningham should write about old bikes and put them in contest! This bike was just another pogo-stick
  • 2 0
 right with you brother - I have a 1992 GT tequesta (rigid, when the main advances in MTB were paint jobs!) that's now a commuter - internally routed cables for brakes! @Matt Wragg - check your facts youngster!
  • 2 0
 To go with the all the holes you guys are pointing out in this article, what about pictures!! We don't get to see the whole bike without lettering in front of it, I want to see the front side of that fork.
  • 1 0
 I remember in the late 90s working on supert cheap ccm bikes with internal cables, hating it just as much as modern bikes.
  • 2 0
 @pyromaniac: Hahaha awesome! I knew it was cool sounding!
  • 2 0
 @jaame: My steel ´95 Karakoram is like that.
  • 28 0
 I remember a few bikes running Sachs IGHs and brakes. They were really expensive. I don't understand how a belt could be good enough for a car engine but not good enough for a bike. You had me at Pirelli!
  • 14 1
 As I recall, the belt was actually taken from Pirelli's off-road parts line used on paris-dakar and baja 1000 desert racers which are exposed to a lot more abuse (heat, sand, rocks, water, mud, etc) than any mountain biker could throw at the thing.
  • 23 0
 I also call bs on a car belt not being up to the task of a bicycle
  • 9 0
 Timing belt service/replacement for most cars is at ~105,000 miles. So yeah...."not durable enough"
  • 5 8
 @snoopy24777: it's not actually pulling much weight in the application used on a car.
Surprised you can't see the difference.
  • 16 2
 @jflb: have you tried turning a motor by hand before, or the cams in which a toothed belt will drive? Timing belts see hundreds to thousands of lbs of force for thousands of operating hours. A timing belt sees significantly more load than a bike chain under the average rider, and they last longer as well. A gates carbon drive belt runs the superchargers on top fuel nitro motors. They are significantly stronger than the dinky chains we use on bikes, which stretch to unusable lengths in merely a few hundred miles of off-road riding (aka half a season). A chain like ours used in a timing belt application will stretch in seconds and break within minutes trying to drive a cam. If you look at a timing chain, you will quickly see why.
  • 4 1
 @atrokz: chains don't stretch, they wear. Causes links to pull apart over time, lengthening the chain.
  • 6 2
 @beast-from-the-east: yes, we can call wear of the roller/pin assembly 'stretch'. The term stretch is used interchangeably with wear as stretch defines the affect of that wear on the assembly (chain). www.parktool.com/product/chain-checker-cc-2 more accurate nomenclature is used in all chain drive systems where elongation is used to define the accumulation of wear on each link (hence 'stretching out the chain' vs 'wearing all those link assemblies' rolls off the tongue better imo).
  • 4 1
 @jflb:

The belts are strong enough to rotate the water pump shaft, the power steering pump shaft, the alternator drive wheel, and often the A/C pump as well, which on most engines represent about a dozen horsepower of energy.
  • 2 4
 Not a lot of dirt/sand/water makes it into the timing belt of a car. Not the case with a mountain bike. Likely the source of the differences in reliability.
  • 5 0
 @Apecush:

You've never looked under a rally car or truck and seen how exposed much of the engine is have you ? Or even worked on just an ordinary car engine driven on roads for a long time. Well I have, and timing/accessory drive belts have no special covers or shielding to protect them from dirt/debris coming up from the underside. There's a reason all the best hand cleaners are sold in the automotive sections of stores. Working on engines is a very messy affair.
  • 2 0
 @deeeight: Not that it changes your point about how strong timing belts are but the timing belts I've replaced, or seen, don't run anything you listed but the water pump. All the other items you listed are run by an accessory belt or two. Then again I haven't worked on many different types of cars. Are their cars out there using the timing belt to run all the accessories?
  • 1 0
 @solidautomech: ideally, timing belts should run nothing but the cam(s). the accessory belt(s) run the pumps/alt/etc. But for space considerations and in some instances motor safety the T belt can drive the W-P.

Chrysler did a few T-Belt driven motors, like the 3.5L V6 from the late 90s, and there's several more mostly from japan, but it's not an ideal arrangement and usually has to do with space confinements. The benefit is that it's a fail safe as the T-Belt lasts longer than accessory belts. I can't think of a single car that runs all accessories from the T belt, thankfully.
  • 1 0
 @atrokz: but in the context that you used the term 'stretch' it implied that the load being transmited would be what lengthened (or stretched) the chain. Chains have very little elastic 'stretch' capacity, when overloaded they will break before any meaningful 'stretch' is felt.
  • 1 0
 @Obidog: the context does not change the terminology. Stretch just means the accumulation of wear on each pin/roller/link assembly. The correct term is elongation, but stretch is used commonly to define when a chain has elongated past it's useful size. Chains generally have elongation of this assembly prior to breakage, as this is the most common failure mode for a chain (elongated hole, pin falls out, chain 'breaks' which also isn't a break if we are getting into semantics). Nothing actually 'breaks apart' rather than falls apart due to the inability for the pin to stay in the link's hole.
  • 1 0
 @atrokz: I see you are one that cannot be wrong...
  • 1 0
 @solidautomech:

Saabs 9000, 9-3 and 9-5s used a single belt to drive all the accessories. 900's had two belts. The belt is driven by a pulley from the crankshaft so technically it has to deal with whatever torque loads the engine is capable of putting out. A lot of other european car makers use single belt setups. Multiple belt setups went the way of the dinosaur for two reasons.

#1 packaging... ie fitting everything into ever shrinking engine bays. In a saab 900, the 4 cylinder engine was longitudally mounted and canted 45 degrees (to lower the hood profile), with the transmission and clutch at the front. There was enough room around the engine that combined with an easily removed hood, other than a handful of procedures, you could do almost anything with minimal fuss. A complete clutch replacement was about 1 hour total for example. Thus a 2-belt system wasn't a problem as there was plenty of room avalable.

Later model saabs went to transverse engines and shrank the engine bay to make the cabin space larger and increased the amount of structure used for crash safety. To simply change the headlight bulbs on my 9-3 requires a cold engine and a lot of wrist contorsions (which is still better than a lot of cars today that require the entire front grill and bumper be removed to pull the complete headlight assemblies out). To replace the accessory drive belt on my 9-3 last summer required me to pull the right front wheel off, remove the inner fender lower wall panel, make a tool for taking the pressure off from the belt tensioner idler arm, and then spend an hour snaking the belt into place with only about an inch of clearance between the pulley wheels and the upper fender wall structure. I have to drive my AC, Water pump, PS pump and Alternator off that one belt.

Saabs have used direct ignition modules since ohh.... the early 90s... so there is no "timing" belt as americans might think of them unless you're dealing with older models without the DI cassette There's a crank position sensor on the engine crank pulley which sends a signal to the engine computer as to when to spark the motor. Its all programmable and automatic and self-calibrates so it really never needs adjusting. The camshafts are chain driven and basically never need replacing/servicing. They also run in a constant bath of engine oil, and being at the top of the engine there's a "ticking" noise when your oil is low that long time saab owners will recognise LONG before the oil pressure/level light would ever come on.

The #2 reason is speciailized single-belt setups helps them control the parts chain better and prevents owners and disreputable mechanics/garages from just using any generic belt instead of an OEM approved one. This isn't done for more profit (the replacement belt costs about $40USD and lasts 100,000 kms on average) so much as preserving the reliability and proper functioning of the engine/accessories.
  • 1 0
 @deeeight: oh saab, as a hardcore volvo enthusiast (the old ones), I don't get saabs at all. And don't tell me they aren't weird oddball cars, 50% brilliant, 50% wtf.

@Obidog: If I spoke about pottery, painting, prams or pregnancy, I wouldn't know where to start. Thankfully this is kind of in my wheelhouse.
  • 1 0
 @atrokz: That's an opinion shared by many saab owners also. Their advertising was typically weird and the cars had some unique features, and the company had a lot of oddball ideas which didn't ever pan out that they spent money developing, but also... they had a lot of ideas which were bloody brilliant. Occupant Safety as a priority was one idea for example all Saab owners have come to appreciate every time they've been in a crash that likely would have led to severe injury in any other comparable car of the same model time period.

I have now hit large deer in two different Saabs as the driver. a 1989 classic generation 900 and a 2002 9-3. The worst thing that has happened in the cabin between the two was I spilled a booster juice I had just bought only minutes before on the second collision. That was a head on, offset impact at 55mph with 400 pounds of large male buck with a six point rack. My gf in the car with me at the time didn't even know we'd hit a deer until I told her. She thought the bang noise had been a tire blowout. This is a consequence of a car maker designing for a MOOSE IMPACT to the windshield.

Top Gear had a saab tribute a couple years ago with Clarkson and May, its on youtube, you should watch it... listen for Clarkson talking about what an engineer from another swedish car maker told him. You can also look for "saab crash" on youtube... they've deliberately hit them with diesel train locomotives to show how well built they are. This is a hit that would have cut 99% of the car models in the world in half and severly injured if not outright killed the occupants and in this saab was fully survivable (albeit with some injury if your the driver).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IPrXAJ2Vj0
  • 6 0
 Not one mention of how similar to other bikes of the time this is-- notably the Treks and Fishers... When URT bikes came out in the early 90's I thought they were the dumbest thing ever, but there was soooo much dumb shit coming out back then. For all you youngsters, see: anything from 88-98, at least. After that VPP was out, 4bars had been figured out, etc etc.

I have nightmares thinking about riding prior to V-brakes, Bombers, etc. Big Grin
  • 13 0
 It was like the wild west though. I look back fondly on stuff back in the day that was designed and put together with the "What if?" attitude. Lots of risk takers and mad scientists building exotic, weird, crazy, and ridiculous stuff in those days. Good times.
  • 2 0
 @timrippeth: Very true ! i still have mtb magazines from 93, 94.. those really were good days, every page had a bike that looked distinctly different from each other ! Nowadays most bikes have the same silhouette. Bikes these days are awesome, but bikes from years gone by, have their own badass charm !
  • 1 0
 @psynide: as long as people aren't slapping bull horns on thier bikes again those things are still silly lol
  • 5 2
 According to Matt Wragg:
While this may look normal now, internal cable routing was virtually unheard of in 1996. Also, this angle should give those too young to remember URTs a better idea of how they worked - the rear triangle was a solid piece that pivoted just ahead of the chainring. The problem with these is that the drivetrain was constantly moving under the rider, which made for a horrific pedaling experience. Also, the unsprung mass was incredible - you also have the cranks included in that weight with this design.

Not quite dear. You see back then there were many URT designs with different approaches, influencing the way the suspension arm was reacting. Some worked bad (really bad), some were goon only when climbing (the infamous Clein Mantra) and some are still around, competing with the oh-so popular 4-bar linkage system…

Although the URT concept has evolved directing us to the floating bottom bracket systems, which operate really well among the rest of the high-end bikes.

To name a few, take a look at GT’s I-Drive, the Maverick American, Commencal’s DH bike (I am pretty sure it is Commencal, but I may be wrong) and more… I remember that there was a “patent war” back then at the 90’s on that system. I know that from first hand as I own an EU patent (category A) on this system…

I believe that the evolution of the URT design has a lot to offer yet, despite the forest of today suspension systems, that are mostly variations of the same design (yep, all this effort has produced some really good systems too..)

Many thanks for this article. A really pleasant read for us who have seen and ridden those bikes, as well for the kids who had no idea about the “wild days” of mountain biking (tons of crazy experimentation). I propose to add some interviews of the people who invent & created those early designs, it would make these articles even more interesting…

Keep on, we want more!
  • 1 0
 That quote caught my attention too, but for different reasons. As far as I know the biggest problem with a basic URT design is that it basically locks out when you stand on the pedals. That's because also the rider is part of the unsprung mass unless the rider is seated. Kinda good for xc, sucks for anything else.
  • 4 0
 @kanioni: don't worry, it wasn't ever good for xc either.
  • 1 0
 @kanioni: The URT system was important back then because platform shocks did not exist and anti-squat kinematics were not used, nor well understood by most bike makers. In context of the time, this bike was pretty smart. The small BB offset on the swingarm would act to stiffen the suspension while pedaling out of the saddle without affecting the rider's pedaling too much while seated, and the URT swingarm would eliminate the need for a belt tension device, so the cog belt drivetrain was made simpler and more reliable.
  • 1 0
 @RichardCunningham:

The funny thing is... platform shocks did exist from certain manufacturers, but they weren't called that at the time and were usually specific to certain brand/models. The Amp thru-shaft shock used a platform circuit in its design. A coil sping inside the shaft assembly held a ball bearing against the flow port (later years added a preload adjuster for the spring) which held the oil transfer port closed until a sufficient bump force was achieved to push it open. Other frame builders which sourced their mac-strut assemblies from Amp including the shocks (such as Dagger) thus got these early platform shocks also. The ones who went to someone else for a shock, or designed their own setups didn't (such as Noleen's being spec'ed by almost everyone including ohhh.... Mantis...nishiki, rocky mountain....etc). Wink
  • 6 0
 Woow that bike looks pretty slick for it's time! ????
  • 3 0
 I had a Trek Y11 wich had an URT rear back in 1997. It worked as long as you sat down on the saddle. Seemed like a good idea at first. I soon got a SC Heckler wich was heavier but so much better in every way.
  • 1 0
 Yep I had a 97 Heckler in Kawasaki green. No rear disc mounts however. A couple years later I swapped in a black disc rear end. I also ran a Boxxer 151 for DH on it with a very early Hope brake....and...and...etc. I'm olden.
  • 1 0
 Rocky Mountain Speed here - same thing. Was brutal for bucking the rider off the front!
  • 2 0
 Looks like a Gary Fisher Joshua, with added support for the seat mast, we have come a long way baby. Thank god canti and vee brakes are gone spent so much time adjusting and playing with different pads, they ate rims and caused more OTB than I can count.
  • 2 0
 It's a Balfa Bobonum!
www.balfa.wooyek.pl/balfa-wooly-bully-bobonum-nr.html
Je me souviens thoses Sach break WITHOUT power and IMPOSSIBLE to set-up properly, like the Pro-Stop!
Viva Magura en the 90!
Merci Pinkbike, it's good bikeporn from the past!
  • 2 0
 Ha! I had Pro Stop brakes! Bled them halfway down every run.
  • 5 1
 Apparently that little battery pack was capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 1 0
 Before the Mr Fusion I really wanted a Flux Capacitor for my Hufffy
  • 1 0
 jigawatts
  • 1 0
 @mrleach: Or a bolt of lightning!!!
  • 3 0
 DeeEight you're on point with the internal cable routing! As a mechanic it was a pain in the ass back in the day.. i've got mixed feelings about it being back today
  • 7 4
 In Mexico this bike make it to production!! You can also ordered on-line!! Wink
bicicentroslezama.com/PREMIUM/kaizer%20dh%2026%20azul.jpg
  • 1 0
 I still have one of those Sachs Powerstop brakes in my parts bin, complete with homemade metal bracket mount. I remember getting it when I was 12 from a mate in a bike shop and actually being able to stop after junking the cheap V brake I was running.
  • 1 0
 How can someone be too young to remember a URT, after the mtb world stopped using them the depatment store bike world fell in love with the cheap easy to construct design and has been using it for the last 20yrs! Anyone too young to remeber those built in the 90s probably rode one as their first MTB from Next or Pacific, or even Mongoose through the 2000s
  • 1 0
 It's always the innovators that have a difficult time producing and marketing their ideas. Such a good idea, but didn't catch on? Really? These technologies are used by all the mtb manufacturers now.... i'd say it caught on. Why didn't Rotwild execute?
  • 1 0
 "For those too young to have ridden with Magura rims brakes, at the time the brakes were too strong for the frames, so they would flex inwards and deform as you braked."

Surely outwards no? I've still got my old kona scab with an HS33 on the back when disc mounts weren't standard. The frame flexes so much when you unhooked the booster Big Grin
  • 3 0
 I remember their bike,s back in those from reading DIRT and Mountain Biking UK they where WILD !!!!
  • 17 0
 Some might even say they were rotwild.
  • 3 0
 Correct me if im wrong but Dirt is only 20 years old.
  • 1 0
 @fartymarty: They seem to be advertising that fact at the moment...
  • 4 3
 The bottom bracket is a part of the rear triangle. Is it just me or does that make zero sense? Wouldn't that mean that the suspension only really works when you're sitting down, like on a Klein Mantra?
  • 11 0
 Except the Klein had a pivot point much further from the BB, so the BB traveled much further. If the BB is very close to the pivot on a URT, the BB moves much less. It can work as a slopestyle design, but does make for an inferior trail bike. It is stupid to say that all URTs were the same.
  • 5 0
 The weight of a rider standing on the pedals would still pull the bike downward.
  • 4 0
 It would have been so there was no chain growth to be able to use the belt without a tensioner.
  • 1 2
 @mattty: All URT bikes are the same in that once you stand up, the suspension basically doesn't work...
In the recent article with the comparing the gear box and standard bike, it talked about the effect of unsprung weight and it's effect. Here you basically have the rider's mass involved!
  • 2 0
 @ReformedRoadie: I built a few URT slopestyle frames years ago. They worked decent soaking up bumps, but the big benefits were that it really smoothed out big landings as well as manualed and hopped like a hardtail.

www.pinkbike.com/photo/6985299

www.pinkbike.com/photo/9176825

www.pinkbike.com/video/212754
  • 1 0
 @mattty:

Nothing like video to show your design working as intended and that you KNOW more about the URT subject than a lot of forum warriors... Wink

There was also I might add... the very famous Rocky Mountain Pipeline... a 6 inch travel URT using by many early freeriders (or froriders for the rocky team guys).
  • 1 1
 @deeeight: Are they still making that Rocky? They also used to use elastomers for suspension...
The video shows a guy dirt jumping and riding street without a helmet (or shirt), so they must give it extra street cred...

The irony of Deeeight calling anyone a 'forum warrior' is amazing...
  • 4 0
 Could have given it a wash first.
  • 10 0
 That's what she said.
  • 6 2
 Cannondale Super V/DH copy.
  • 2 0
 dam cool bike though. But how could an offroad automotive belt witstand the abuse of an engine....but not being peddled? i doubt you know what your talking about.
  • 2 0
 Anyone that thinks that belt would hold up has no clue on the torque load difference between turning a camshaft and trying to rotate a wheel.
  • 1 0
 I had one of the sach 3x7 hubs, it had 3 internal gears then the normal cassette. Was cable operated. Was great job back in late 90's as could run single front ring with a chain device but still have 21 gears.
  • 1 0
 I assume Rotwild has to pay Pinkbike for these articles right? (about time we could read more about this company). Anyways, they make great bikes, I own a RX 1, amazing machine.
  • 3 0
 would you rather ride that or a redalp
  • 2 0
 Ooh, tough one.... This I think. At least you'd like slightly less of a bellend
  • 1 0
 I'm still rocking my white race face forged cranks. Need to upgrade, syncros crank-o-matic for my forged would be a nice touch.
  • 3 1
 Very nice. And very forward looking. Rotwild still makes great bikes.
  • 2 0
 I have a feeling that there is a rotwild review coming in the near future
  • 2 1
 For sure. They're circulating Rotwild news like a fart in a fan factory.
  • 1 0
 My 2001 KHS FXT Sport had a URT suspension design. With a platform shock, it pedaled alright.
  • 1 0
 Those forks look eerily similar to the Votec GS3 I put in my Zaskar LE in 1996.
  • 2 0
 so in a few days pink bike will launch the now Rotwild DH bike
  • 1 0
 Maybe I'm being paranoid but that disk brake mount scares the s*** outta me. Does not look up to the task.
  • 2 1
 WOW....is ancient for now
but its a SUPERBIKE in 1996 :o
  • 2 0
 88mph Marty!!
  • 1 0
 Wow two Rotwild articles in one week...what's happening?
  • 1 0
 Incredible!!!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.049236
Mobile Version of Website