When it came to the first mountain bike parts, the bottom bracket spindle was one of my first projects. I was breaking them with regularity so I worked on a design that moved the bearings farther outboard and used two bearings per side to support the spindle almost to the edge of where the taper started (spindles were tapered back then). I made the spindle larger diameter as well. I had a local machine shop make these for me out of titanium and I used them mostly for myself but also sold some to local shops in both Phoenix and the Chicago area.
I also built my first frame around this time. It was called the Sun Eagle Bicycle Works Talon and was featured in a 1988 issue of Mountain Bike Action article entitled: "Bikes of the Future." It was featured right alongside two Mantis models and the Nishiki Alien. For those who don't know, all three of those were all bikes designed by Pinkbike's own Richard Cunningham, so I was excited to be featured right alongside the best in the sport.
The next step was to try a new model at Kinesis USA (a Taiwanese owned company based in Portland at the time). With my previous experience, we did the same thing and started production in-house while working with Kinesis on the same model. This, combined with my previous learning experience, helped to make this a really successful project for us, and almost doubled the size of Titus that year. However, after the first couple of deliveries, Kinesis Taiwan chose to shut down Kinesis USA and we had the option of pulling the project back in-house or transferring the project to Taiwan. We transferred it to Taiwan and this was really when Taiwan became my second home. It was not an easy transition but it was an exciting one and it turned out to be great timing as this is when the sport was really shifting.
The other day I test rode a current model Mach 6, pretty much the same as the one pictured here. Same drivetrain as mine, same brakes, same tyres. The two bikes pedalled about the same, but, straight off the bat, the Pivot handled better. Not by much, but clearly better. Reading this article, it's now not such a surprise...Well done to Chris and Co.
In 2007, the Kona Coilair, not the most advanced or expensive bike out there, had
65.7 degree HT,
347mm bb height,
Sure, bikes have gotten better, but 650b and boost are a negligible increment with little real world benefits
It's 3 years ago when "cool" brands approved and refined the idea.
We were even doing 1x and 2x drivetrains, short stems, and big tires before they were "enduro" and "cool" as well.
The "enduro" crowd won't like this, but the new long travel "enduro" bikes are just lightweight freeride bikes. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Enduro bikes and 27.5" bikes have been around for more than 3-5 years... The industry decided to kill 26" bikes in the last three years.
And cheaper products, like press fit, are a big part of the reason why people don't like the 10k price model.
And I'm all for threaded and it would actually influence my purchase of a new frame, but I will say I am not scared away by PF anymore.
But check out the actual suspension kinematics on linkagedesign and decide for yourself if the Mach 6's dw-link performs significantly different from a really high single pivot. (pro tip: it doesn't)
Key point being that, we will prey on the poor. And once that society starts to 'develop' and therefore their work force must be paid a reasonable amount the industry moves on...pretty much a reflection of the global society we live in...but sad to hear.
Bare this in mind, that person building your $3500 frame probably got 0.00001% of that on a per frame basis. Total bullshit that costs will only go up, only reason they will go up is because owners and shareholders want to make more money than the previous year. The industry has made huge innovations in manufacturing processes, out sourcing, etc etc all these things should drive prices down, so its crap that it gets more expensive.
But we're willing to pay more each year...so prices will go up.
Please, please, please educate yourself on some basic economics before you spout positions and policies that will slow the rate of growth in developing countries. The absolute number of people living in absolute poverty, defined by living on less than $1.25/day by the UN, has halved in the last 25 years despite the word population growing by two billion people. This is the most unprecedented reduction of human misery and early death that has ever happened in all of history, and it has happened precisely because of free trade and the free market.
^^^Just one sample.
Every piece of economic evidence out there shows that the world, especially the developing world, is getting better, and faster than any other time in history
but there are too many variables, the Chinese stock market fraud is definitely something which will affect, Mexico's GDP growth has fallen from 5% to below 2% in less than 3 years, those things affect making those milestones get delayed.
Indeed, the world has seen a significant reduction the numbers of those living in extreme poverty with more than a billion individuals living in extreme poverty being lifted to living in mere poverty or relative poverty; a reduction to 1.3 billion still in extreme poverty (20% of GP)...visit Sub-Saharan Africa things look great . So in a way I agree with you, things are getting better and the UN's new goal on the eradication of extreme poverty, the you highlight, is a bold and powerful statement. But those living in extreme poverty won't be getting jobs making carbon frames anytime soon.
My point about 'preying' on the poor does not relate to extreme poverty in any way, it relate to company’s using global wage inequality to increase their YOY profit…and making us pay more for a product. But as such a scholar of global economics @hamncheez you could perhaps enlighten us on possible solutions…ooh maybe even make some points about the links between capitalism and new slavery, afterall 95% of us are in fact wage slaves??
None of us are wage slaves. We are mortality slaves. All of us have to eat, and "by the sweat of [our] brow eat [our] bread." You have to grow food or kill it to live. How you do it is up to you, in a capitalistic society. No one forces you to work at your current job. If you don't like it, apply somewhere else or start your own business. Capitalism is an environment that allows the easiest entry into entrepreneurship. I've been involved with starting two or three businesses, and one of them even made some money! "New Slavery" is not something that exists in reality. In the West people are working less hours, at less dangerous jobs, and making more than they ever have in history. And before you start on this "1% vs 99%" garbage, if you measure income in hours needed to work to buy basic necessities for the median wage earner in Western developed countries it is mind blowing the changes in well being from even just our parents generation.
At the start of the industrial revolution, not even 200 years ago, 9 out of every 10 americans had to be engaged in agriculture to live. It took 9 people to grow enough food to feed one additional person. Now the number is 1 in 50 and falling. Since the 1950s we have gotten so good at growing food that despite our increased population and appetites we have been farming less and less land every year! Imagine if it still took 9 people to grow enough food for 10! That is real "wage slavery", being a slave to nature. Working 16 hour days in the hot sun, praying you have enough harvest to feed your underfed children over the winter. Knowing if you have just one bad year, a drought or blight of some sort that you'll probably have to choose which child will die when the food runs out. That is true slavery. Not liking your office job is the furthest thing from it.
Without capitalism there would be exactly 0 mountain bikes, and the only free time anyone would have to ride would be 3 or 4 holidays a year. Without the increase in productivity that Capitalism enables weekends would not exist for the common man.
@jclnv "proportionate to the decreases in the developed world" is utterly false. It is like arguing creationism in a biology class. There is exactly 0 economic evidence for your claim. The two foundation principles of Economics is scarcity (theres no free lunch) and the gains from trade. In Africa there is next to none large scale irrigation schemes, little use of tractors and other agricultural mechanization, nearly no use of modern fertilizers, and the most hunger in the world. Should we in the West ban trade with Africa? If we don't buy their sugar, they can't sell it for as much to other Africans (poor people can't afford sugar). They can't then invest in a tractor or pesticides. They stay insanely poor. We have to pay more for sugar, so we are poorer as well. We now have to turn more wilderness into farmland, and less people in our country can be artists, doctors, engineers, or teachers because we need more farmers. We become much poorer was well.
The benefits from free trade (a lack of tariffs or import/export quotas) is the single most clearly established economic principle there is, from mountains upon mountains of empirical evidence spanning continents and centuries of time.
PS the TPP is not an example of free trade
@Narro2 watch this video (skip to about 13 min in, or watch the whole thing its great)
I know these economic posts are long, and nobody reads them, and @WAKIdesigns likes to poke fun at me, but I think the welfare of the poorest citizens of the world is worth talking about
I think you need to revaluate your principles a little...the economic model is floored in innumerable ways. But at least you care :ø).
"After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased"
www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm North American Forest Commission
" the total number of prime farmland hectares nationwide had declined from 137 million (340 million ac) in 1982 to 133 (330 million ac) in 1992"
" Between 1950 and 1992, even greater declines in farmland occurred"
landcover.usgs.gov/luhna/chap2.php US Geological Survey
In 1920, the average US industrial wage was $.50, and 3 pounds of chicken was about $1.17, so about 2.4 labor hours to buy (and the quality was lower; much more likely to give you food poisoning, etc)
In 1997, the average industrial wage was $12.50 and 3 lbs of chicken was $2.99, or .25 labor hours
Prices, measured in wage-hours worked for the average industrial US wage earner, have fallen off a cliff. This is the same for newspapers (a major purchase item and extremely important part of everyday life up until a decade ago), food, clothes, shoes, and nearly everything except cars, houses, and education. However, cars are far safer, last longer, and are more powerful/comfortable than ever, so the direct price comparison isn't accurate. Computers and smartphones, the two things that we as rich westerners spend the most hours of our day on didn't even exist in a usable form when our parents were growing up. Houses, on average, have grown in square footage in the last 40 years, and now are made with drywall instead of lathe and plaster, have better insulation, less carcinogenic materials, etc. Higher education is another topic altogether, and is an exception to this rule.
1-2 acres of rain forest in cleared ever second, so around one football field per second. Animal agriculture and palm oil have a cumulative deforestation of circa 600 billion m2 to date. this could go on for a long time, but have a cheeky google on the subjects. And to top it off have a read of this advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full
Moreover, go travel and see the world outside america please! You have been educated in a failed state (Chomsky!) Grow your mind!
I travelled by bike, 20km+ on three separate trips and 25+ countries: Syria, Sudan, Tibet, China, India, Nepal...just to name some poor ones . Gave me fair basis to understand the world around me. Just a suggestion...
Anyway, still why does a carbon frame cost $3500?
The rain forests in Brazil and other South American, African, and Southern Asians countries are being unsustainability clear-cut, I agree, but the problem isn't as bad as most people think, but its still a huge issue of concern.
What is the solution to this? Why isn't this happening in the rain forests of the North American Pacific Northwest? Two words: Private Property. In Brazil the land is owned publicly, which is the same thing as saying nobody owns it. Politicians are corrupt and since logging companies don't own the land they can't profit off it long term, so the incentive is to clear-cut. In British Columbia, the land is clearly owned and the logging companies farm the trees, replanting and maintaining the forest because it is profitable from its exclusivity; it is private property (to some extent; with most of it leased land it does get somewhat more complex).
There are problems in the world, but they are not insurmountable. The US uses less and less land for farming because we apply insane technology to increase yields per acre. If this technology is adopted by the rest of the world, much less land would be needed to feed the world. The best UN predictions for population growth have the global population maxing out at around 10-11 billion people, and if US agricultural methods were applied everywhere LESS land could be farmed/developed to feed an 11-billion person world than we are using now, and this is assuming agricultural technology stays at current levels.
Once again, the UN's millennial goals hope to eradicate global poverty by 2030, and I think this is achievable.
same economic laws as any other goods or services. Milton was a huge advocate of free markets for healthcare.
Good health is critical for emerging economies, and is far to important to be left in the hands of a monopoly. Competition always brings about better results in providing goods and services to the masses than a monopoly.
That aside, you use statistics to try and bolster your floored arguments, please please think more broadly. The decrease in land usage for agriculture has nothing to do with improvements in technology, but everything to do with soil degradation. 'Farmers' or capitalists if we reference our earlier, will not stop using land because they can increase their yield and therefore produce enough; this is @WAKIdesigns point...the world would be a better place if it were so.
In the United States, around 140 million hectares of agricultural land has been lost in the last 30 years as a result of soil degradation and conversion for urban use...nothing to do with technology. Its life saying the rate of global deforestation is decreasing, yes it is...because there is less forest to cut down!
Anyway, this is getting pointless so lets leave it be. @hamncheez, dude you have some pretty weird views of the world!
Happy riding to you!!!
Yes US uses 'insane technology', but so does the rest of the world. Also the American soils are pretty crappy compared to Europe or Asia. So no, US farming isn't that great.
When a Monopoly exists in the Free Market, it can only maintain its monopoly status by providing exceptionally better goods and services, and even then all monopolies in a free market can never last, with extremely few exceptions. Since the industrial revolution, there have been exactly 2 private monopolies that have lasted more than a decade: Debeers Diamond Company and the New York Stock Exchange up to 1929. Every single other instance of a monopoly that has persisted has done so because of government (itself a monopoly) interference in the free market.
Evidently you are a fundamentalist of sorts and with all fundamentalist you lake the neural plasticity to comprehend that your world view/foundation is in fact totally floored...I believe the common term for this is f*cktard...but I could be getting my translations wrong there?
Sustainability is the capacity to endure; it is how biological systems remain diverse and productive indefinitely. Current farming is the opposite of diverse, modern farming is all about monoculture? its productivity if is derived from pesticides and fertilisers?
Almond farming in California is a great example of non sustainable farming from water use perspective. This really could go on for a long time...
Point 2: read your posts on economics etc
I was obviously taking the piss a points, as this is a medium of entertainment...but with that aside your arguments are so unbalanced and one sided I just had to point out some basic information that easily available. Just have read and watch some documentaries.
What is this cutting edge technology you speak of? As a farmer myself I would like to know. From what I know US has the same equipment as we have here. And please don't tell me you have better yield than any country in the world, cause It's making me laugh. Wheat yield per hectare in US is at least 2 times lower than here, in Europe! And even then we aren't leading cause there are countries which produce from a hectare even more than that! Same goes with other grains, except maybe for corn. It's so funny how you think the rest of the world is a few years back compared to the (not so) great America. Who told you all this bullshit?
'Cutting edge technology' you really made me laugh ;D
1) supply and demand
2) small volume supply
3) $50,000 moulds per front triangle
just a few of the issues I have experienced with all seven of the demo fleet I unfortunately had the joy of working on over the summer, to top of with bad customer service from there Distributer, not ideal when yous spending top doller!!
Despite the Phoenix is an amazing bike and have an incredible riding feeling it has too many flaws. I hope they can fix it.
The shock problem will still be there because of the linkage system but the frame works amazing with an air shock. If you want to use a spring choose one burly enough to last like the Ext Arma or the CCDB with the new thick stem (I just don't know how to say it in English,I mean the central piece of the shock). I broke the RC4 that came with the frame in one day in rocky terrain (pretty gnarly terrain I have to say).
Of course a modern hardtail will have a proper fork and all the other bits, but a hardtail is so capable now that I wonder about the comparison.
It's an amazing trail bike 120mm travel with no issues from UT to AZ and to BC Bike Race and much more.
Just wish it had a tapered head tube.
I can't upgrade to the better forks/dampers of today !
Yet another thing to be jealous about then.
how good would the Phoenix C look with a straighter downtube?
Another nice read.
The wife's brother owns one so I took it out for the weekend yup.
Also work in a shop which allows me to try a ton of bikes and allows me to demo bikes from other ships as well. Though it's in the top 3 I have ridden I don't own one lol. Cost has a little to do with it but mostly because its not what I look for in a bike.
But honestly bud, go find a pivot dealer and see if you can demo this bike. You will not be disappointed.