Caminade Shows Off Prototype Titanium Enduro Bike
PRESS RELEASE: Caminade Bikes
My name is Geoffery Buisan. It all started last December when I made the decision to join the Caminade. Until the end of my studies in February, I communicated almost daily with Brice to discuss vision and strategy. Mountain biking is deeply ingrained in Caminade's identity. Don’t forget that the One4All and SimpleTrack were the first bikes in our lineup. As time moved on, our customers requested a gravel bike. Naturally, we put our energy in this direction, with the design and development of a titanium welded gravel bike with fork and stem manufactured in our workshop, and the innovative carbon joints that led to the manufacture of the AllRoad and LongRoad, thus bringing to market a titanium bike at an affordable price.
In the end though, I'm a flat pedal mountain biker at heart so one beautiful January morning when Brice suggested that I design a titanium full suspension MTB, I was excited for what was to come.
Our in house production in the south of France next to Perpignan in Ile-sur-Têt
ChillEasy identity
The ChillEasy is destined to ride hard. It's capable in endurance riding all the way up as well as tackling tough terrain on the way down.
We determined the bike must be fit to ride over a variety of terrain so we had several tests it must pass to ensure this could happen:
First, the Garoutade itinerary that we have at the start of the workshop. It has 60 km of riding with 2500 m of elevation. Then the bike bust allow me to go down the 1500 m of descent on the famous yellow train DH, and finally, to cruise laps on the most exposed trails of Bike Park Les Angles.
The name of the bike came to us during a brewery day at La Ferme Ta Gueule. Like a SpeakEasy, the philosophical beers of this microbrewery relax customers into a fun easy going evening. We want out bike to be a machine to give you effortless pleasure and that’s why we call it ChillEasy! Chill to signify having a good time, and Easy for the ease at which this bike will ensure you have a good time! To reinforce the Chill side of the bike, we welded a bottle opener next to the bottom bracket.
Details matter: CH3, Can Ma Mere and Mental Margarita are the names of the trails we built next to the workshop.
Titanium Frame
I started mountain biking at the age of 15 and I'm 25 today. Before arriving at Caminade, I had only known the aluminum and carbon frames made in Asia. I did not understand the nobility of titanium. After getting on a titanium gravel bike several times, I quickly understood the effectiveness of the material. After inspecting Sylvain's titanium Gravel, which has had two years of intense use, I quickly understood the durability of this material. That's why titanium was a natural choice for the ChillEasy.
Besides the difficulty of welding, titanium's elasticity can also be problematic. Stiffening the bottom bracket enough to resist the big efforts for which this bike is intended was one issue. We solved this with the 30mm housing axis which serves as the main pivot on which rotates on two sets of crankcase bearings - one for the front triangle and one for the rear triangle, and the new standard, Super Boost Plus which further separates the bearings again a little further the bearings (the DH bottom bracket is 104.5 mm wide).
So, with no chain effect, we will be able to focus on the tuning possibilities offered by the Olhins 4 way hydraulic shock - compression low speeds a little closed for support, high speeds quite open... and a lockout for long climbs!
The sensitivity and vibration absorption offered by titanium allowed us to reduce the SAG and with a lower overall amount of travel, we are in the same numbers as a bike with 160mm in the rear.
Our titanium frame is fully shaped and welded in our in-house production
The damper is moved to the side, as on direct-draw motorcycles.
Unlike many designers who draw a bike starting with the general shape, we started by positioning the damper to promote a truly progressive ratio curve without any inflection of the curve, and especially not at the end of the travel.
The problem with this is that the damper must be closer to the wheel and very low in the middle of the seat tube. We could have used rockers to give a proper shape to the ratio but it would have been heavier and with a higher shock not favoring a low center of gravity. Therefore, we chose to slightly shift the damper and bend the top of the frame to get around this, which also gives the frame sensual forms.
What's next?
Now it's time to get out with the bike and ride it hard! We will be back with more news to tell you what happens during this long phase of testing.
Learn more at caminade.eu
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Does no-one rollerblade anymore?
I still go! Friday night skate in London and Sunday roller stroll....good times....
'Dispatch shots fired'
(I feel like I have to caveat these comments with a ''we're only joking here people, we're not jew hating homophobic Nazis). Jesus Christ...
WAIT
Almost forgot
AS AN ENGINEER, this does not seem like a great idea.
About the only place concentric makes sense is single speed slopestyle.
I suppose this prototype is a step in the right direction, but it's only brought their kinematics up to the level of the less successful bikes from the '90s.
No, that will never produce anything other than extreme pedaling squat.
The acceleration of applying power produces squat. With negative anti-squat (i.e. positive chain squat), the chain tension adds to, not counteracts, the squat from acceleration.
Seat tube angle, progressive leverage rates, etc. do not change this. It is impossible for the spring force to increase rapidly enough to not allow significant squat; if this was somehow possible, the same brick wall of spring force would apply to hitting a bump, which is as bad as it sounds for bump compliance.
Nearly all other systems have falling anti squat rates simply because this is how they work, not because they set out to make that happen. Designers then target a certain level of anti squat at the sag point and then the system generates increased anti squat above the sag point by default. Its almost like baggage that unavoidably comes with most systems. The industry is so used to it, we don’t know any better.
If I, or any other kinematics designer, wanted anti-squat to increase, we could easily accomplish that. Caminade did it on the One4All - by accident, I suspect - demonstrating it's possible. The reason it's not done is because we don't want to do it.
Bringing the suspension back to the sag point with chain tension is not desirable; gravity will do this for you. Generation 1 Santa Cruz VPP kinematics did this and were rightly abandoned.
You will find these links helpful:
www.youtube.com/user/andrextr
www.i-tracksuspension.com/suspensiontheory.html
Firstly, the i-track guys agree with me on a heap of issues. E.g. they state “Most bikes on the market have Anti-Squat that decreases throughout travel. ” if you find that statement, (in the “anti-squat curve section”) keep reading that paragraph and they go on to advocate for a design that has increasing anti squat below the sag point as otherwise it is an unstable system that needs heavy damping to keep it under control!
As for before the sag point. There's is a lot of subtlety in what i am saying that probably can be better explained. Specifically, its not about pulling the suspension back down from above the sag point using the chain force but more about not driving it up above the sag point due to chain force. Again the I-track webpage acknowledges this extensively. But what they are missing in the theory is the fact that bikes are pedalled over bumps and up hills. Their theory is all explained in the context of flat smooth ground.
There are a number of key scenarios where substantial anti squat above the sag point is not so helpful. The most obvious example is pedaling up a hill over a root. When the rear wheel hits the root, speed is reduced, all of a sudden the high anti squat reaction is not balanced by forward acceleration, weight shifts forward slightly, the rear suspension is unweighted slightly, chain force goes up as you pedal to lift your centre of mass up over the root, high anti squat causes the suspension to extend further and all of a sudden your suspension is extending into the bump rather than compressing to absorb it.
I have testing showing this happening. So i know it occurs.
I would also question your assumptions that doing it differently has all been done before and dropped cause it was no good. I not aware of any VPP bike that delivered a anti squat response well down below 100% when the suspension is above the sag point. But if you know of one or have a Linkage file on one, let me know.
"Most bikes on the market have Anti-Squat that decreases throughout travel. When accelerating with these systems, if a bump is encountered (or the rider inputs a ‘pump’), then the suspension compresses to a position with less Anti-Squat, meaning there is less force assisting the suspension to return to equilibrium. This type of system is unstable.
"If the Anti-Squat increases throughout the pedalling zone, then when accelerating, if a bump is encountered (or the rider inputs a ‘pump’), then the suspension compresses to a position which has more Anti-Squat, meaning there is more force assisting the suspension to return to equilibrium. This type of system is stable."
This is one of the areas in which I disagree with Hugh. He seems to forget that spring force increases, so even if anti-squat decreases deeper in the travel, the spring force is higher, providing an increasing total restoring force.
Similarly, your scenario of hitting a root when riding uphill overestimates the role of anti-squat and neglects the role of spring force. The rider's forward weight shift does not trigger the suspension to reach an anti-squat regime that is so powerful that it now begins to lift the rider. The increase in total anti-squat force in your scenario is tiny, relative to the reduction in spring force.
Regaring old Santa Cruz designs: Look up the 2005 Blur models in the Linkage Web Library. The anti-squat curve is similar to the Caminade One4All, which Santa Cruz quickly abandoned and hasn't looked back.
Sorry still don’t think the facts support your view. Appreciate the discussion though as i did learn some things.
Your right about Santa Cruz in 2003. For older models i had only really eye balled their wheel path and not looked at the actual anti squat curves.
But this is bad for the rest or your argument. SC did not abandon this back then. Based on a quick search of anti squat curves they embraced this for multiple years. See linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2013/09/sc-blur-xc-old-school.html?m=1
If this is correct it shows heavily reducing anti squat in the 2007 model. So probably in 2009 they started to flattened out the anti squat drop above sag. But the drop is still significant in that series (2011 model in the graph) and also still present on 2014 models. Arguably its only the very latest generation that has a really flat curve with little drop above sag. Hardly an abandoned strategy.
So i was wrong that this hasn’t been used at all in the past. Instead it has quietly been used for years by arguably one of the best pedaling bike brands out there! Its just that they didn’t use the anti squat language to explain their technology.
By the way have you ever ridden an All4one to know it is so bad. I haven’t ridden one. But i have ridden and tested some SC bikes and others with similar anti squat curves.
As for i-track - you pointed me to that website. Nevertheless i agree with you that his comments that the system is unstable are over exaggerated, and agree also, spring force is part of that.
But i think you also have over stated the effect of spring force as if it is always dominant. At the end of the day the bike suspension is a system, with all aspects influencing the outcome. The question is whether the influence of one aspect is obvious.
In terms of my example the f the negative effects of high anti squat above the sag point - at the end of the day I can easily trump your theory that high anti squat forces above the sag point won’t lift the suspension over a bump simply due to the reducing spring force. While I am sure this is possible in the right situation, I have test results of popular high end modern bikes doing exactly what you say won’t happen. So this effect is real and a lot of common bikes out there have system configurations and settings that produce this outcome when they are ridden in the real world. It can be significant, it can be felt by the rider and it clearly shows up in test data.
The fact remains they *did* abandon that design - even their other models at that same time used a different design.
- Almost no companies currently use rising anti-squat.
- Almost no companies *have ever* used rising anti-squat.
- The one major company that used it on a pedaling bike (as opposed to DH) abandoned it.
- In 2012, the then-head of Santa Cruz Engineering (and now CEO), Joe Graney, published a blog post stating their original thinking on kinematics was to focus on axle path, rather than anti-squat and anti-rise, and acknowledging how wrong this was. That's where their weird kinematics came from and the man who developed it apologized for it:
www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-CA/news/344
What are we even arguing about? If you're supporting a rising anti-squat curve, I hope you're going to make a very enlightening argument in support of it; if not, the whole industry, other than Caminade, will continue to use falling A-S curves and I look forward to ceasing to discuss long-abandoned designs.
Man, SC apologised for the way they explained their bikes. NOT how their bikes worked. Big difference.
If you can’t understand this no wonder we are arguing.
So to restate my original comment with a bit more measure: There is clearly significant merit in having a flat or dropping anti squat above the sag point as proven over the years by Santa Cruz and Yeti and now being used by Nailed. In other words this means have a rising anti squat curve at the start of the travel. But many in the industry still don’t realise this.
linkagedesign.blogspot.com/2016/04/yeti-sb55c-29-2016.html?m=1
All the best.
Let's not make absolute statements, like whether anti-rise does or does not rise. Let's look at *how much* it rises.
For example, the greatest rise in anti-squat showed in the chart you linked is a single-digit percentage. I have no problem with kinematics of this nature. A couple percent is not what we're talking about; we're talking about orders-of-magnitude rises in anti-squat.
The Caminade One4All starts at -80% and rises to +80% (using my standard centre of mass and sprocket combination). That's a hell of a lot more than a single digit percentage. The problem is not with a little rise, but with huge rise.
Now, let's talk about your product. You seem to be the person behind bhaack.com/what-is-vast. The chart you published shows your design rising from an anti-squat of -120% to +120%, then falling back to about 60%. There is no other curve like this - never has been, never will be (the One4All being somewhat similar). And there are good reasons for this.
When your invention contradicts a mature industry and thousands of minds, you've either reinvented the wheel or you're the one making the error. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", so please provide your extraordinary evidence, including charts showing not simply how your design produces lower wheel displacement, but showing this with normalization of leverage curves and damper forces, because your chart could plausibly be explained by just having more low-speed damping.
The whole Sick! episode has certainly tarnished my view of small brands - this company may be completely different, but I read about them and find myself thinking about whether they are another Sick! in the making... Shame.
But
seat angle is way too slack
shock is way too exposed (to legs and rock/terrain when crashed)
and it will prob pedal shit with where that pivot is
and no need for titanium in a full sus unless your a bike tart.
Bike for rider who cares about aesthetics not performance.
That would be seriously funny if that was an option. Who knows
That round hole is simply a bit of the rear triangle below the BB.
www.youtube.com/user/andrextr
www.i-tracksuspension.com/suspensiontheory.html
"The kinematics of most bikes have predominantly negative anti-squat to prevent chain growth ..."
With this in mind, please review your understanding of anti-squat.
Perhaps you're referring to *decreasing* anti-squat, in which case I agree with you, but you need to be more careful with your terminology.
Do you think it'll all be worth it?
The first clue was the titanium lol.
Otherwise...holy moly that thing looks sweet! What is the rear travel?
These guys are serious frame builders, I can tell you !
Keep on caminade ! ;-)
Either way, the bike looks pretty as it is now.