Did You See That? RAM Bikes URT Chassis and Quadrilateral Fork - Sea Otter 2015

Apr 19, 2015
by Richard Cunningham  
Richard Sheppard is six foot, six inches tall and weighs in at 289 pounds on a good day, so as one may expect, there are not many dual-suspension trailbikes out there that can either fit him, or that can manage to perform well enough to make him happy. Sheppard also prefers the durability and simplicity of a single speed, which further reduces his shopping list - and eventually led him down the path to making his own bikes. To that end, Sheppard founded Ram Bikes a number of years ago and his latest creation is an efficient-pedaling one-speed with seven inches of wheel travel on both ends. Like all of his designs, it is both wild looking and functional, and he'll make you one if you say please. Although he considers frame building as a hobby, a steady stream of like-minded customers may eventually force him to take up the TIG torch full time. Sheppard dropped in to the Pinkbike Dome at Sea Otter to show us his latest masterpiece.

RAM bike and fork

Ram Bikes URT Chassis

The RAM chassis is essentially the same as the old-school unified rear triangle designs of the mid 1990’s. The bottom bracket is attached to the swingarm, which in the case of this design, pivots on a four-bar linkage near the intersection of the seat tube and top tube. The advantage of a URT design is no-bob pedaling when the rider is attacking out of the saddle. Sheppard says that, while most observers believe that the bottom bracket's vertical travel is excessive, the four-bar linkage is configured instead to move the BB fore and aft so that it does not overtly affect pedaling.

There is no front triangle. Instead, a single, large-diameter chromoly pipe connects the fork to the swingarm, creating a chassis that looks about as simple as a dual-suspension design can be made. Reason two for the RAM's unified rear end is that the chain length is stable through the suspension's travel, which means that Sheppard's design is well adapted to single-speed applications. For geared riders, no chain growth means that a mid-length derailleur cage should be enough to handle any one-by drivetrain.


RAM quadrilateral suspension fork
RAM's 180mm quadrilateral suspension fork weighs about six pounds.
RAM Quadrilateral Fork

Sheppard's coup de grace this year was a 180-millimeter-travel leading-link suspension fork borrowed from a similar motocross fork design by Valentino Ribi. The fork uses a four-bar linkage to create a nearly straight axle path which traces the head angle within an eighth of an inch (4mm). As a result, the quadrilateral fork feels and steers like a conventional telescopic design with the exception of one important aspect: it has much less stiction.

The linkage pivots run on small-diameter, smooth-acting ball and plain bearings, while suspension and spring duties are handled by a single Fox Float X Kashima CTD shock. The smaller swept area of the shock and the fact that the quadrilateral fork drives it at bit more than a two-to-one ratio helps reduce starting friction and reportedly, makes for a much more responsive fork.

bigquotesI discovered that one brake heated up too much on the longer descents, so I added the second brake. Now I never worry about heat at all.

Four-bar forks are neither new nor revolutionary, but in the context of the RAM project, it makes sense, especially considering that Sheppard shreds long descents like the Downieville DH on a regular basis, so he needs a responsive, long-stroke fork that can take a beating. The uppers and lowers are chromoly steel, while the articulating links are water-jet cut aluminum. Down below, the massively wide front hub is actually two Azonic front hubs, cut down and joined at the center so Sheppard could use two disc brakes. A splitter beneath the fork "crown" sends brake fluid to both front brakes from the left-side lever. There is no welded or mechanical joint to transfer braking torque from one side of the fork to the other. Instead, the left-side spokes handle the torque of the left side brake and the right side spokes take care of braking on the right. Sheppard said: "I discovered that one brake heated up too much on the longer descents, so I added the second brake. Now I never worry about heat at all."

RAM quadrilateral fork
A T-splitter zip-tied to the fork below the Float X shock routes brake fluid to the twin calipers. A pair of threaded shafts determine the fork's axle path. The tubular chromoly bits carry the major loads.
RAM fork
The massively wide front hub is actually two hubs sliced in half and rejoined, so Sheppard could have a six-bolt rotor interface on both sides. For stiffness, he uses a 20-millimeter through-axle.


Be sure to check out all of our Sea Otter Classic images in this gallery.





259 Comments

  • 345 2
 You can't show us that bike and not have some sweet edit of it actually being ridden! C'mon PB, bring us this guys trail vid's. Smile
  • 23 0
 Yeah seriously, that's what I hoped I'd see here. I went on youtube and it seems there is another company called ram bikes, making traditional bikes.
  • 23 1
 This is how the "fork" works
instagram.com/p/1qSNEAvtun
  • 10 3
 Looks like a Trek ...
  • 10 46
flag WayneParsons (Apr 20, 2015 at 15:57) (Below Threshold)
 shitbike version 2.0
  • 8 1
 @ wayneparsons - because you could better? Might not be the prettiest bike in the world, but there is a lot of work gone into it, not to mention some nifty ideas to boot.
  • 2 4
 two front shocks. What happens when you manual, no rear suspension. Your weight is on the pedals.
  • 7 12
flag cliffdog (Apr 21, 2015 at 13:11) (Below Threshold)
 Hit a big jump, and that, ladies and gentlemen will snap!
  • 4 3
 Doubt it there, clifford.
  • 14 0
 for those interested, I drew up some rough suspension geometry of this frame to see the axle and bb paths during travel. pretty interesting design, would love to see it in use. www.pinkbike.com/photo/12146676
  • 3 5
 Nobody makes it cause it doesn't work! It's a VPP version of this: awesomebikes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/klein-mantra-race.jpg

It's an overly-complicated VPP thudbuster.
  • 7 4
 Well just because a suspension design looks similar to another does not mean it performs in at all the same way. That old klein has much different BB, axle and wheel paths, and therefore a much different suspension functionality and feel.
  • 2 1
 Well I'm sure a VPP thudbuster would be better than a single pivot thudbuster, just ask Santa Cruz Wink It's still a thudbuster and not gonna be as good as full-suspension bike.
  • 1 2
 why not?
  • 2 3
 A well-design full suspension design will work when you are on and off the saddle, this design will only work when you are sitting on the saddle, much like a suspension seatpost/thudbuster. In theory it's good for a XC bike because you can get out of the saddle and mash without worry about suspension absorbing your pedalling. But in general full suspension bikes work much better these days, so you don't need to compromise.
  • 4 3
 Its a URT. I stand by my comment. In no way shape or form should anyone be making URT's anymore (or ever).
  • 4 3
 I dont think you guys know what your talking about, sorry.
  • 3 2
 Nope, no one does except the man wo designed and built it. Sure wish there was a way I could stop getting notified of all these ridiculis comments.
  • 2 2
 @radrider you can sit there and analyze the bb path/axle path/suspension curve etc.. but it's irrevelent when it only works when the rider is seated. Take a hardtail and cut the front triangle in half at the top tube and downtube and put suspension in the middle, that's what this design is, the bottom bracket isn't seperated from the axle like a real full suspension bike..
  • 4 3
 you are saying it only works when the rider is seated, which is true with other urt designs, but this is different. those other urt designs don't have an axle path and bb path like this frame...if the bb is not moving during travel how is this only effective when seated?
  • 3 4
 Think about it like this, on a hardtail you have no rear suspension and basically the only form of bump absorption is your legs. Suspension on normal designs isolates the impacts from the front end where your bb is and this is no different except your bb is on the swingarm meaning the full forces of the impacts go to your legs exactly the same as a hardtail. No matter what suspension characteristics an urt bike has it will only ever absorb bumps whilst seated.
  • 4 3
 the physics is beyond you.
  • 2 2
 @radrider I don't think you are getting it. Just think about having the rear wheel attached to the same beam as your BB. How is the suspension going to compress if you are standing?

Then imagine taking any other suspension design, stand on the chain stays, and tell me how the suspension will compress.

Its the same thing.
  • 7 2
 think of it this way...you have seen frames with bb mounted pivot points yes??? this frame acts exactly the same way as far as physics is concerned. if the bb is not moving relative to the front triangle during travel, it is in effect the same as having the bb mounted to the front triangle. if the bb is not moving, or is moving in a horizontal direction relative to the front triangle during travel, suspension characteristics are not going to be effected by the weight changing from seated to standing any more then a virtual pivot design with the front triangle mated to the bb.

You need to replay the video or pause it and slowly click through frames, but this shows how the bb and rear axle move. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLLzyInE3oY
  • 1 0
 what video?
  • 1 0
 there is nothing there, that's the point. As in, no video. its a blank screen for 2 seconds.
  • 2 0
 weird, it works for me. videos shows animation of the frame during travel, bb doesnt move.
  • 4 0
 obviously your missing the point about this being a different urt design with a stationary BB...there is no reason you should expect these two very different designs to function the same way...end of story
  • 1 1
 I'll grant you that it is a different URT, but it still is one
  • 4 1
 there are positive aspects of urt also, but in old designs heavily outweighed by other issues. if this guy has fixed the main issue with urt maybe it is a promising design, i dont know, and we wont know until we try it or hear from some good riders to review it. I just think it wrong to pass this off as another urt design and pass it off just for that reason when the builder has said some interesting things about the functionality of his design, and the axle and bb paths show this is definitely something different. suspension geometry for bikes is mostly focused on pivot location, leverage ratios, and pedal kickback/chain stretch, and the builder seems to have addressed all of those in a really unique way, i admit i was very sceptical of this frame when i first saw the picture, but after reading about it and drawing out the frame to measure the suspension geo, i change my mind and think this is a promising design. If you disagree thats cool, but im not going to explain why i think is promising anymore then i have.
  • 1 3
 To me it looks like when the suspension goes in, it would feel like all your spokes are snapping and you're about to go OTB. Seems like a weird feeling that your front wheel travels a bit backwards while it suspends.

That would also actually increase the odds of going OTB: frontwheel more to the back means smaller leverage.

I'll just stick with normal forks Smile
  • 4 0
 The fork does have only 4mm backwardtravel more than a usual telescopic fork. I´m sure you won´t feel anything of this. And if he would have wanted, he could have designed it with less BWT. It´s only in the locating of the pivotpoints.
  • 1 0
 [nvm, replied to the wrong comment]
  • 2 0
 [EDIT: no, I just forgot how PB's replies work.]

Radrider's comment about pivoting around the BB is probably the most insightful thing on this whole page.

The marketing in this industry seems to have convinced an awful lot of people that buzzwords are all you need.
  • 177 3
 Regardless of how this rides, the guy's a hero just for building it.
  • 21 3
 I see a new standard coming out....CAN'T WAIT!!!
  • 6 1
 I'm on board with trying dual front rotors on the DH sled if anyone brings them to market (not necessarily for more power...but to eliminate heat issues period)
My Saint is an outstanding brake..but I'd try a dual setup, just sayin : )
  • 5 0
 Dual front discs have been around almost as long as disc brakes!

www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=26102
  • 1 0
 greyborgusa.com/product/front-fork

Dual disc fork and hub... though I don't know if I'd roll the dice with a DNM fork. It's one thing shelling out $80 on a cheapo air shock, but $600 is on a whole different level.
  • 1 0
 I ran the single-disc version of that DNM for a while, and it really wasn't too bad - especially when you consider the price of most DH forks! Damping wasn't very sophisticated, but it was very plush and stiff. And the axle and clamps are the best of any bolt-thru fork I've seen yet - superbly machined and near-impossible to damage unlike the cheese metal on a Boxxer. Not sure I believe that weight figure though - mine were monumentally heavy, just over 9lbs, which is why I moved on - I'm a lightweight, and the sheer heft and stiff spring rate were more suited to big guys.
  • 3 0
 DNM has some new stuff out I'd love to hear reviews on. Bmbracing's comments were the most thorough review I have heard on their products. This has caught my eye: www.dnmshock.com/products.php?func=p_detail&p_id=87&pc_parent=6
and this: www.amazon.com/DNM-Mountain-Dropper-Seatpost-30-9x330mm/dp/B00K2PFE9K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429715285&sr=8-1&keywords=dnm+dropper+post
  • 2 0
 Their dropper posts are pretty good for the most part. My buddy has had one for a couple of years, and he loves it. That fork does look pretty sweet. Considering that their regular dual crown sells for $400ish, this will probably be in a decent price range as well.
  • 2 0
 If the double front brake really is effective to prevent your brakes from overheating (which does make sence IMO), this is a great idea they should do more on DH / bikepark bikes.

I understand that racers wouldn't want this due to extra weight and shit, but for the average rider who hits bikeparks and DH purely for their own pleasure, why not?
  • 1 0
 Thanks taletotell. Looking closer at the pics and specs of the DNM Volcano DH fork, they've updated it slightly since mine - extra inch of travel, slight bit of machining on the crowns, and looks like different seal housings. Otherwise probably similar - if so, not an open bath damper so the seal housings unscrew by hand and the inner foam wiper has to be lubricated with light oil/grease, slight inconvenience but keeps the bushings nice and smooth - mine were great, barely any stiction despite big 35mm stanchions. Crowns are machined from solid alu, no fancy hollow forgings, so I still don't believe the weight figure - also the steerer is alu but so thick-walled I had to use a 1" star nut rather than a 1.125"! But the fork does give the impression of being well-made and tough. See the little disc brake hose guide clamp just below the lower crown - that's real metal, no cheapo plastic thing - not on mine anyway! Smile
  • 99 1
 Unique and original. Props on coming up with something on his own and actually building it. Regardless of functionality, we need more ppl like this in the world
  • 13 0
 This is the guy making the fork I've always thought might be a good thing to try. It looks kinda wack right now but I've always thought there must be a cool and logical way to make a fork more like a shock. Shocks are always more responsive because they only have one stanchion (half the friction) and they're under a leverage ratio (even less depending on the ratio) so shocks are usually 3-4 times as responsive as a fork simply for those reasons.

Anyway, I hope to see more people trying to make that practical. This is a start. I believe in it!
  • 15 0
 This is incredibly sketchy and I love it
  • 3 1
 kinda like a backyard amp research fork... A bit overdone I think
  • 7 0
 This fork was tried by Honda in the early 80's but it was cost prohibitive to put into production. I think weight might have been an issue, but modern materials could solve that problem. Being a hobby frame builder myself, I just HAVE to try to build one now !!!
  • 4 0
 The caption says the fork design weighs about 6lbs thats pretty decent.
  • 2 0
 @Willie1 I will also do it but more in a triangle fork design. Interested in how stiff it could be build.
  • 75 11
 Kind of like an uggers girlfriend. Fun to ride, but you don't want anyone seeing you do it.
  • 47 1
 According to standards of Online Know-All Engineering Organisation, the biggest downside of this bike is Fox CTD shock. Put a Pike and XT brakes on it and people will only wonder if reach is long enough Big Grin
  • 6 0
 It is a bit odd so, to go to so much trouble with the front fork, and then put a Fox shock on it, especially when you already have a decent shock in the rear Wink
  • 4 0
 I wonder what Protour would think of this one....
  • 3 1
 @WAKIdesigns People will also wonder why the stem is of such a silly length
  • 29 0
 Does not look like a session
  • 29 3
 Damn, that looks like a recipe for seriously shortened wheelbase at full squish. Should we tell @Protour?
  • 12 4
 If bikes cold have kids, this would be a survived abortion
  • 4 1
 It actually looks like the wheelbase would stay relatively constant throughout the stroke.
  • 27 2
 if Megatron rode a bike...
  • 44 0
 If megatron was a bike!
  • 23 1
 I've heard his mum's a bike
  • 3 2
 If "Alien" had a bike.
  • 23 2
 I can't decide if I love it or if I hate it.. Surely interesting either way.
  • 17 2
 im loving it, nice thinking outside the box. the bike industry needs more guys like him.
  • 18 6
 Looks very cool but it's a suspension design that doesn't work when you're standing on the pedals. Like the old klein mantra, or trek y-bikes. Not much point having 8 inches of travel that only works when you're sitting down. I do like the fork and double disc arrangement though.
  • 2 4
 I was just thinking this about the rear too. It looks like it would provide no real advantage over a hardtail while you're standing.
  • 9 0
 The wheel still moves upward in relation to the bottom bracket when the suspension compresses, counter-intuitively. You're still suspended standing on the pedals, just by the suspension curve rather than a big obvious pivot. ...I think. It's a hard bike to understand without seeing it in person, or at least seeing the suspension in motion.
  • 8 0
 It would still function while standing. For it not to would mean he defied physics. Hopefully PB bring us a video so people can see how it moves.
  • 3 5
 It would just pivot around that parallel linkage in the middle, much like the klein mantra I mentioned earlier. Not really suspending the rear end as such, just separating the front from the rear of the bike. I understand that the bottom bracket will move but not in an efficient separation of pedals from rear wheel input.
  • 4 3
 Instead of having to move the weight of the swingarm and rear wheel, as the design fintions when seated, while standing, one's body weight becomes part of the unsprung mass, making the suspension far less apt to move. Not really physics defying.
  • 5 1
 Just like the old URTs the idea was that it was active when seated and it would still work when standing only it would take a lot more force to activate the suspension (which in theory you would want because you're moving fast presumably downhill). All of those old URTs had brutal brake jack/stinkbug problems.

In this design the rear triangle seems to move forward as the suspension compresses. I'm having trouble imagining how that would track over anything. I would love to see a video of someone riding it.

If you could make a bike that had a whole bunch of seated suspension and comfort but was like a hardtail part of the time wouldn't that be great? That was the original driving thought of URTs when they were around. People were stuck much harder back then on the idea that suspension was heavy, bad pedalling and only for descending (which was sort of true given the bikes at the time) so URTs were a marketable concept. Many people are happy riding bikes with zero rear suspension.
  • 3 0
 based on the near horizontal position of the front link forcing front of the swing arm down quickly and the almost vertical position of the rear link keeping the rear pivot level for a short bit, and with the rear axle sitting below the BB. im betting it actually has a small amount of near vertical wheel path at the beginning of the stroke. So its might not be that bad on square edge bumps. again we're talking about the rear suspension just in case anyone got confused. Its tricky to visualize. this might just make me track down my old erector set and find out.
  • 1 3
 i would just like to point out that your body is not unsprung mass, you have legs don't you?
  • 6 0
 A 4 bar linkage like that creates a virtual pivot point. I'm guessing that it "Virtually" pivots around the BB or as close as reasonable.

Actually, just found a Video of it shown in Linkage (Suspension geometry design tool) www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLLzyInE3oY
  • 6 0
 People seem to think "URT = stiff when standing" just because there was a wave of URT bikes which had that problem years ago.

But the problem was not caused by URT itself, it was caused by the ridiculous pivot placement on those old URT bikes.

This bike has an effective pivot point near the BB, so it should ride like any other bike with a similar pivot point. If you stand on the pedals and bounce, the BB will drop just as much as any other bike with the same wheel path and the same effective spring and damping rates - regardless of where the actual pivots and links are located.
  • 14 0
 I know its not the same but I thought of the AMP fork when I saw that front end. End Random thought
  • 1 0
 It is the same, with a different orientation of the shock and damper.
  • 16 1
 No Boost standard?? Pffft
  • 6 1
 At least that guy understands he doesn't care about the new bullshit standards made by the industry.
  • 3 1
 I don't think this guy cares about any standards, period. Where are the whiners about the custom front hub? How the hell could he upgrade (?) his fork with that wheel?
  • 2 0
 @Wille1:

When this guy wants to upgrade, he designs and builds what he wants.

Compatibility is for consumers. He's a builder.
  • 15 1
 It's gonna urt when it breaks
  • 12 0
 Favorite thing from sea otter!
  • 12 0
 Interesting braking strategy; dual 180 front, single 140 rear?!
  • 10 1
 lots of motorcycles do that...75% or so of braking forces are needed up front. SMART idea.
  • 1 1
 wouldn't you need something to multiply the force imparted by the brake lever though, like a booster? Seems like if you're moving the same amount of fluid, you'd only get 50% of the force at the caliper this way.
  • 3 0
 Quite possibly, unless his splitter does the job. If he needed it, he probably would have put it on by now.
  • 5 0
 he split it for temp not power
  • 2 0
 Kind of...he put two brakes on because 1 heated up too much, but he had to split the line so that it could run to 2 brake calipers with one lever, thus probably allowing cooler running temps.
  • 3 0
 I understand hit split it for temp, but 50% of pad travel might not be 50%(at each rotor) of braking force. plus, the lever can only move so much fluid per cm of stroke: if you get, say, 1.5 cm of stroke(guesstimate, measuring at the end of the lever) before the lever stiffens when attached to one caliper, wouldn't you get 3 cm with 2 calipers, essentially putting the lever into the bars?
  • 3 0
 @groghunter I'm guessing this is easily remedied by running the lever way out, and it sounds like he'd have to anyway since he's big.
  • 1 0
 Remember that I just guesstimated at those numbers. figure roughly twice as much lever throw though: even running your lever all the way out, it's going to get really close to the bars at full squeeze, which is even worse for those with big hands. On some levers, you could play around with changing the cam that actually depresses the plunger, but if you make it so that it increases plunger movement for a given throw, it's going to lower your mechanical advantage at the lever. nothing comes for free.
  • 3 0
 It would be easy for an experience brake bleeder to bleed the system so both calipers held the pads right where they needed to be. so your pad movement would be as minimal as possible. you would lose a lot of pad wear adjustment, and would be susceptible to feeling a warped rotor, but then again you wouldn't be wearing your pads as quick with this set up. likely a good trade off for a big guy running long descents. with that much braking surface you could sacrifice some lever leverage too. some of the quad bikes used by paraplegics use a very similar setup with a splitter and it seems to work just fine. I seem to recall Magura used to make a dual rotor specific brake years ago too.
  • 1 0
 Nice. explained that way, it makes a lot of sense, thanks @cthorpe. I guess the real question would be how linear the brake action is, & how much caliper piston volume has to be displaced when squeezing the brake to get adequate stopping power.
  • 3 0
 What we can't see is which brake master cylinder he's using. Mixing and matching systems, you could get away with a M/C made for a pit-bike (motorbike (more fluid displacement than with a MTB lever)) with calipers made for a MTB. That way each caliper would get the displacement it was designed for.
  • 1 0
 I actually didn't say it, but one of my first thoughts was that maybe he was using a moto lever of some variety. I didn't know enough about wrenching on motos to know if they actually have a higher fluid displacement at the lever or not.
  • 1 0
 good point. even if hes not using a moto lever that would work very well. Long as you could get the proper fittings, since motos run larger diameter brake lines. A hydraulic clutch lever from a moto may be perfect.
  • 1 0
 they're avid/sram brakes, I think he could solve the fluid displacement problem by advancing the timing port on the front brakes relative to the rear.
  • 8 0
 Sweet bike! I've met Richard and road trails with him, super cool guy! He's been riding and tweaking that rear suspension for a while now. It must work for him. He builds all sorts of bikes. He has a nice little machine shop in his garage. Almost every year he shows up to Sea Otter with a new creation. Good Job!
  • 4 0
 At 6 foot 3 and around 330 pounds I would give anything to ride one of these. With a 1x11 groupset this would make an excellent trail/xc that was stiff when up and stomping but nice and smooth while seated, as well as looking like it would outlast the cockroaches in the apocalypse... How do we get in contact with this guy?!
  • 4 0
 I love crazy weirdo ideas. I even like the idea of URTs.
It's crazy that this guy isn't building with bigger wheels. 29" wheels are to 6'6" as 26" wheels are to 5'6".
I'm 6'6" 220. There are bikes that fit, and big wheels and tall head tubes are key. Specialized Enduro 29 in XL is massive; put a CCDBA on there and you have a large person bike that is eminently durable, stiff and good pedalling. The Yeti SB6 also comes in an insanely big XL.

I'm not sure what the problem with fork stiction is? As a bigger rider I've always required a lot of preload and then more compression damping to my forks. Yeah I get that those things shouldn't come from the seals but at the end of the day it's still providing the resistance you need. Avoiding stiction and then introducing flex through those linkages doesn't seem like a good trade for a 290lb rider.

That all being said I still love this stuff. I would love to try this bike. I actually kind of want the frame regardless - but can I get just the frame and with a derailleur hanger?

I wonder if it would stinkbug the way some URTs did?

Yeah. We're going to need a video.
  • 4 0
 Saw this suspension design a couple of years ago, everyone just dismissed it because URT. I thought it was pretty cool, while it is URT the way the pivots work means it performs better/different to a traditional URT.
  • 3 0
 I'm 250lb without gear, and even at 200mm front and rear I'm sick to death of cooking my brakes. I may just get this guy to make me a fork and hub.
  • 1 0
 There is probably a market for a kit that includes lines, splitter and hub.
  • 2 0
 How about an aftermarket kit that includes post mounts?
  • 1 0
 That is a good point.
  • 18 17
 This guy is 2" shorter than I am but weighs 50% more. Maybe that is where he should start first?
But I see, this is America. Obese people rule.

Nonetheless a very impressive vehicle. Can it be retrofitted with two 25kw electric engines?
  • 12 0
 He could be a solid wall of muscle. There are some dense guys out there that shred.
  • 11 2
 @cxfahrer that's pretty judgmental without seeing the dude. Go back to enjoying your weird porn and eating too many sausages there buddy.
  • 5 0
 CXfahrer- Are you a stickman in a cartoon. 6-8 @ 145. My 15yo is more jacked than you.
  • 3 2
 Yeah but there are fat people everywhere, and maybe he's really strong and not fat, ever consider that? I don't think at 6'6" his weight is anywhere near obese. sounds like you need a cheeseburger bro. I think your post was a weak jab at the USA and nothing more. 'Merica!
  • 2 2
 Regardless it was an internet troll douche statement. Der fuhrer can blow me.
  • 5 2
 nah.. i met this guy... he is one big solid block of man... more manly than any german i ever saw...
  • 3 2
 50% more doesn't make this guy weigh in at 145... I'm just saying. More like 193lbs... Still, being at 193pounds, doesn't change the fact that his comment about obese people was stupid as f*uck...
  • 1 0
 At 6 foot 6 inches tall, i think that maybe a custom XXL V10 designed to take 29+ wheels with dual crown fork would look good on him.. There was this v10 featured in mbaction in 2012-2013 with a custom Sycip rear triangle fitted with 26 in fat wheels at that time.
  • 2 0
 There are bikes that fit tall people. XL Enduro 29, XL Yeti SB6. Though maybe he doesn't like those for whatever reason and enjoys an engineering challenge. Clearly he's not a guy to take the easy way. And clearly he has preferences. Good on him.
  • 1 0
 Trek Remedy 29, Kona Process 111...

6'8" here, there's not many bikes which fit, so I tend to remember the ones which do. The remedy is massive.
  • 1 0
 If you think the Remedy is massive, than you need to look at this baby:
www.mondraker.com/15/eng/bikes/crafty-xr/400/geometry
  • 4 2
 Stop me if I'm wrong but ... The rear shock won't work well if you're standing on the pedals, you'll have to put all your weight on the saddle which is bad for this kind of bike am I right ?
  • 2 0
 A 4 bar linkage like that creates a virtual pivot point. I'm guessing that it "Virtually" pivots around the BB or as close as reasonable.

Actually, just found a Video of it shown in Linkage (Suspension geometry design tool) www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLLzyInE3oY
  • 1 0
 I have to make sure that my bike can't see me when I am looking at that bike.
I so intrigued and fascinated that my bike would have a mechanical out of spite and jealousy for sure.
Even if I never rode her,the curious intention is enough to get me in trouble! Smile
  • 1 0
 As a bigger rider (6'4" & 235) I get some of what he's doing and scratch my head at others. Good on him though, way more out of the box than "+ bike" & boost. What does this really say to me though; "Hey bike industry, give your head a shake! A 110mm wide 15mm axle?" Give us big guys BIG brakes & 20mm axles!" FYI one of my good friends and (and fellow MTBR) is 6'3" & 170. Hey Pinkbike how about a Ht and Wt survey? Just kinda curious.
  • 1 0
 FWIW- Honda owns or owned the patents on Ribi's designs. They may have expired now. The original Ribi fork and antisquat rear suspension was way ahead of its time. Moto is so set in its ways that it makes pre 80's cycling look radical. Waiting for Weagle's Orion setup to show its face.
  • 3 2
 Every bump you hit will feedback through the pedals. He should have used a loop around the rear shock and put the bottom bracket suspended from the top tube to be independant of all suspension action! I am no engineer but I think my idea added will make the whole thing work!
  • 1 0
 i think you are right...i'm saying this since a couple of days...
  • 1 0
 URT bikes sucked back in the day, and they still suck today.

They're only useful for people who ride seated ALL THE TIME.

Like this slopestyle bike, for example:

www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/bmxdirt-jump/pseries/pslope-frame

MIND = BLOWN?
  • 1 0
 Just for fun! (i am doulbe / triple posting this from those articles:

www.pinkbike.com/news/the-short-turbulent-life-of-urt-suspension-mtb-history.html

&

www.pinkbike.com/news/throwback-thursday-5-weird-and-wonderful-products-from-sea-otters-past.html)

Consider 2, almost identical frames, with the same front end (main frame), the same rear end (suspension arm) and one suspension pivot located at the BB tube. Here is the only difference:

A) The first one (let us call it the “A” frame) has the BB welded ON the rear arm. The BB is enclosed within a pair, of so beloved, bearings, which are attached on the main frame, via the old ring & bold apparatus.
Now,
This is CLEARLY a URT, isn’t it? The BB is part of the rear suspension arm….

B) The other one (we will call it the “B” frame) has the BB welded ON the main frame (that’s the front part of the frame!). The BB is enclosed within the same pair of bearings, which are attached on the rear suspension arm via the old ring & bold apparatus.
Now,
CLEARLY this is NOT a URT frame! The BB is part of the main frame and not the rear suspension arm.

The difference will be more evident if we took apart those 2 frames. The “A” frame will be a URT (the BB is part of the rear suspension arm & the “B” frame will not be, as the BB will “stay” on the main frame.

Here are the questions.

1) Given the fact that those 2 frames are equipped with the identical parts (suspension fork, parts, brakes…) will they ride differently?

2) If we cover the pivot, will anyone be able to recognize which witch is which, by just ridding the damn things?

3) So, given the fact that a URT may ride exactly the same as a non URT, just because both frames suspension arms are pivoting on the same axle, cannot we claim that if we are able to rotate an other URT design concentrically to the BB, it will ride as a non URT?
Or more correctly,
With this principle, won’t we be able to get rid of the stiffening of the rear suspension while descending, as soon as we stand on our pedals?

This is what the RAM bike does. The rear arm is suspended over a virtual point that is also the BB. So when the rider stands on the pedals the rear end does NOT stiffen!

This has nothing to do with the preferred suspension travel. In this apparatus, the wheelbase gets shorter as soon as the rear wheel axle crosses the BB height. At first and as long as the rear axle has not passed the BB, the wheelbase will increase. Then as the suspension arm travels through to the limits of it’s travel, the wheelbase will shorten.

For my (a personal preference) this is the only negative with Mr. Sheppard’s design. Everything else is brilliantly made! For once more congrats Richard!
  • 4 4
 if the bottom bracket is solidly fixated to the swingarm...doesn't it mean that the suspension acts only on the rider support, and not on the whole bike? basically it doesn't work if your are not sitting on the saddle? i'm confused.
  • 3 1
 That's why URT became extinct in pre-2k years. At least here it tries to put the virtual pivot near BB, so it's not as ugly as older design.
  • 4 6
 You're right, the rear suspension will not work, when the rider is standing on the pedals...
  • 4 3
 and given that when you go downhill you don't seat, i don't see the point of this design....
  • 1 1
 The Szazbo was pretty sweet for the time.
  • 1 1
 I had the exact same question. Really wondering how a bike will feel that has the BB attached to the swingarm?
  • 5 1
 The rear suspension still works while standing. Perhaps not optimal but it does actuate when standing. Contemplate how the bottom bracket moves when going through the suspension range. It isn't a static height above the ground.
  • 4 1
 The top part where the shock is mounted moves forward and down, because of the 4-bar linkage. The whole assembly pivots very near to where the BB is, so it probably performs much like a concentric pivot bike like the Kona Bass or the Specialized P
  • 4 5
 yeah i get this but the whole point is that bb is part of the unsprung part of the bike, therefore the rider is also unsprung when standing. so the suspension works only for the seat. i guess the seat will be very comfy, not so the rider...
  • 7 2
 THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND THE RIDER ARE SUSPENDED! The thing has a virtual pivot point very near to the BB; from the BB upwards toward the shock, the lever pivots forward and down, around a VPP thats somewhere near the BB
  • 2 4
 Yes is a pity, it won't work all shock from the rear wheel will be transferred to legs when out the saddle and the fork throws the body weight over the front and will no doubt send you over the bars.
  • 1 4
 @hamncheez No they are not? Care to explain how they would be (suspended)? I don't know a single thing about suspension designs, I ride hardtails, but that definitely looks like an hardtail to me, with a pretty convoluted front suspension and an exceptionally comfy seatpost.
  • 3 4
 @hamncheez look i'm no engineer (i'm a physicist) but it's like @marcus2065 says...if the bb and the swingarm are on the same rigid body, there's NO WAY a virtual pivot or whatever will decouple your feet from the shocks you will receive from the pedals. if you where sitting on the saddle with your feet NOT touching the pedals, that would be your case, but it'S also e pretty silly (and dangerous) way to ride downhill...
  • 11 1
 Look at the 4-bar linkage where the rear shock is mounted. As the front linkage cycles through its travel, it rotates counter-clockwise around the upper pivot. The lower pivot (still on the front link) moves down and forward. The second, rear link pivots counter-clockwise as well, moving the lower shock mount forward. If you take a mostly vertical lever , | , and move the top part forward and then downward, you get / , so | -> / the bar is pivoting around the center of it, which I'm guessing is around the BB area.

How many of us have welded up a frame? Most of us barely understand how suspension works and this guy up and made his own bike. I pretty sure he has a better handle on how it works than we do.
  • 2 6
flag justgivemeanavailableusername (Apr 20, 2015 at 9:17) (Below Threshold)
 I give up. I'm not criticizing the design... and I feel I'm just stating the obvious. If you're feet are solidly connected to the wheel they are unsprung, so there is no rear suspension as we call it today. The rear end is rigid, hence hard, hence it's a hardtail. What happens on the front part of the bike doesn't matter, who cares where the virtual pivot stands if your feet are on the unsprung side?
  • 5 0
 @hamncheez
Bravo, man!

But they will say their the same "it will not work"_bullshit because they just UNABLE TO VISUALIZE THE CINEMATICS of this suspension nevermind how much you describe it to them. Just look. Smile
So don't waist your time and energy too much.
You (and several others) told the main thing already: THE BOTTOM BRACKET ***AND THE RIDER**** ARE SUSPENDED!
It is enough to stop be a dumb telling "it will not work".

The rider "hangs" on the shock, what more to understand ?
HOW SUPPLE - it is the other question.
The suppleness and sensetivity of this design depends on a shock probably more than other designs (BB_ON_FT). That''s why the creator designer used CCDB - because it is dramaticaly tunable and versatile.
I bet CCDB will manage this situation very well, but of course the adjustments will differ from those used for "BB_ON_FT" designs.
If to use some other simpler shock the result will likely be less sensetive and supple.

I'm personally glad to see there is at least one guy who understands, and if there are more than one of them here - I'm happy, Im not alone!
But when I see such veichles I'm full of enthusiasm!
  • 3 0
 There are so many interesting questions around this bike. I hope we can see a video of it in action. Howsabout an interview with the maker himself?
  • 5 0
 This guy has made his own bikes, come up with cool/innovative suspension designs (even if they are impractical for mass consumption), and "I don't know a single thing about suspension designs" along with "look i'm no engineer" know more about how it works than he does.
  • 2 0
 It's starting to make more sense to me. If you imagine if the seatstay and bb weren't connected to the front of the bike at all, if you stood on the pedals and pushed down the BB would swing down, with the chainstay swingarm rotating around the rear axle. (Obviously if it wasn't connected to the front of the bike the bb would just fall down but just for visualization imagine it like this.) Also here is an interview with the guy: www.bikerumor.com/2012/08/07/interview-richard-sheppard-of-ram-bikes
  • 6 0
 In the link I posted from bike rumor you can see a two second animation showing an older version of the bike's linkage. This paragraph helps too " The design is unified to in order to run the single speed. BB movement is not cool so I use a pair of links to trace out a ICR (instantaneous center of rotation) path through the BB location. The early stroke effective pivot point is pretty far back so the bike is very active in or out of the saddle. In the midstroke, where the pedaling efficiency is most important, the effective pivot is concentric with the BB (notice minimal BB movement in the video) but moving forward to a stiffer position rapidly. For one inch of midstroke wheel travel, the ICR advances forward three inches. The result is good progressiveness at the crank and a falling rate in the saddle." (Notice the bike is active in or OUT of the saddle.) Pinkbike we need a video of someone standing on this thing!
  • 3 4
 @hamncheez @bikecustomizer we are not saying the suspension doesn't work at all. we are just saying that in the case of a vertical force applied to the rear wheel, as it is in the case of a mountain bike ridden down a trail that goes over a bump, the rider, whose contact point with the bike is only the pedals, would be unsprung mass. off course if you start jumping on the pedals you compress the suspension (but much less than you would in a modern single pivot / four bar / vpp / dw suspension), but that's not the point...the suspension main job is to react to forces from the ground to the bike, not vice-versa. i repeat, i'm no engineer but i freaking know what a leverage is. and URT is not innovative, it's a 90's design that is now obsolete....for good reasons.

dirtmountainbike.com/features/the-15-worst-mountain-bike-products-ever.html/16#XVMbXfc2MWvSerP2.97

singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/what-are-urt-bikes

www.oocities.org/bezean/fullsus.html

let me quote a part of the last link

"The inherent problem with this design is that the rider is in effect standing on the swingarm. This is less of a problem when the rider is seated, but the natural tendency when going over larger obstacles, rough terrain, or technical sections is to stand up, rendering the rear suspension almost useless."

so dry your pants and next time be a little less prone to scoff as dumb someone else's comment.
  • 2 3
 yeah i saw the video. that doesn't change a comma of my comment. unless you want to start with a strawman argument, you should read (and understand) what others say.
  • 5 0
 Its not a URT in the sense that those other ones are. Look at the animation, and see how the rear axle moves in relation to the bottom bracket, and how much the bottom bracket moves in relation to the seat.
  • 3 0
 @bruccio, it does change your comment. You say "If the bottom bracket is not solidly fixated to the swing arm" ....but it is not. The bottom bracket is a pivot and the swing arm can orbit around it. The rider stands on the pedals and the swing arm pivots around the bottom bracket when the wheel hits a bump. The linkage could achieve that by making the virtual pivot point at the BB. I guess in theory it could achieve all sorts of other characteristics like any other VPP design. I think it's cool.
  • 1 0
 Miss quoted you. Meant to say "bottom bracket IS" ....but it is not. Smile
  • 3 0
 @Bruccio
You and others "non-understanders", please, understand that NOT VERTICAL FORCE IS APPLIED to the rear wheel but BACKWARD-VERTICAL because a bike moves forvard.
And consider this design do not forget the rider's weight on the BB helps to rotate all the swing-arm when the hit force is applied to the rear wheel because the rear wheel is lighter and on the "lever" to the BB.
Moreover, here the BB IS THE PIVOT, as it is mentioned several times, so hit force is "converted" to rotarion around the BB, means AROUND THE MAIN WEIGHT, and this is just another deal.
  • 2 4
 again, cinematically speaking, doesn't change the meaning of my posts. as i already said, i'm not saying that it doesn't work at all. as pointed out in other comments, when standing on the pedals, the rider weight is unsprung mass. you can talk about VPP as long as you want, but if the swingarm AND the BB are in the same monolitic piece of metal, as this is the case, the feet of the rider aren't decoupled by the forces coming from hitting a bump or whatever. that's a FACT. the suspension can rotate around the vpp near the bb as much as you want, that's not the point of my comment. it's like having your feet on the chainstay instead of on the pedals of a "normal" full suspension. come on guys. and let me point out one thing: i quote the guy from the interview on bike rumor:

"But that ICR stuff makes a 6” travel bike pedal like a 2” travel bike, so that’s progress." now either this is bullshit or the suspension sucks at doing its job, because we are talking about a downhill bike with 6 inch travel that pedals better than a modern XC rig. now i believe that with this design the pedal bob is lessened to a very good extent, but not for a second i will believe that it is also active and responsive like an Horst or VPP / DW design. you can't have a drunken wife and a full bottle of wine. try to huck to flat that thing over a 3/4 meters drop, guess your ankles will not be happy. props to the guys that welded the frame by himself, i'm not denying that it's a very nice work. i'm only pointing out the obvious.
  • 1 3
 just a little addendum: the rider is unsprung mass as respect to the bike suspension Smile i guess that riding this bike means that you have to work a lot with your legs to absorb the bigger impacts Wink
  • 2 0
 The broken tap will drip forever driving one nuts with the same "bang bang bang..." sounds until it is repaired or changed.
  • 1 1
 yeah...sounds familiar, right?
  • 4 0
 The rider is not unsprung mass with this suspension design. Weight applied to the pedals causes the suspension to sag.
  • 2 1
 whatever guys. guess my physics 1 professor was wrong after all. peace out.
  • 3 0
 Thanks @hamncheez for the clip. A bit short but it is enough.
Man, after looking at visualized cinematics in this video "youtu.be/DLLzyInE3oY" it becames OBVIOUSLY that in this design RIDER'S WEIGHT APPLIED TO THE BB ***HELPS*** the swing arm to rotate around the BB, thus making this rear suspension very responsive, especially with CCDB installed.
  • 3 0
 Don't know anything about your physics 1 professor. But what is clear is that the rider's weight actuates the suspension. That makes it sprung mass.
  • 2 0
 The protoype YT industries slope bike could be considered a URT with the pivot concentric with the BB. It still works just fine:

fstatic3.mtb-news.de/f3/16/1699/1699091-wnnb0np74owh-cm0a9719-original.jpg
  • 1 1
 The more I "dig in" this design cinematics the more I see it is NOT a URT. It is dman clever SINGLE PIVOT with improved params!
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez
Do you know tire name/model on the rear wheel at this pic: fstatic3.mtb-news.de/f3/16/1699/1699091-wnnb0np74owh-cm0a9719-original.jpg ?
  • 1 0
 i dont
  • 1 1
 This design is most definitely a URT. It's very similar in principle to the RockShox LTD URT that Trevor Harris designed. The biggest problem with active URTs that have an effective pivot near the BB is that they tend to need a fair bit of compression damping in order to be efficient pedalers. If you build a URT that is more active forward weight transfer during pedaling has a tendency to compress the suspension. Most poor performing URT that people remember were the opposite of this as they were built long before we had platform valving.
  • 2 2
 @Honus
Unified Rear Triangle = URT
Show us please, the REAR TRIANGLE and it's UNIFICATION in this particular design.

And the examples of "Most poor performing URT that people remember were the opposite of this as they were built long before we had platform valving"
in the studio, please.

Some people just can't get rid off of the tags and patterns in their heads once got used to some terms and abbreviations.

URT's have a HIGH PIVOT, much higher than BB - well pedalling sitting but not much supple standing.
And this design has a low pivot around the BB.
  • 2 1
 @bikecustomizer
If you can't see that this bike is a URT I really don't know what to say other than you don't know what URT is.

A URT design is a suspension bike where the BB is directly fixed to the rear axle- all URT designs share this particular characteristic, regardless of the pivot location (either fixed or migrating instantaneous center of rotation.) The RAM bike featured here has the BB directly welded to the rear dropouts and they move together- it's a URT because the chainstays and the BB are the swingarm/rear triangle. URTs can be simple swingarm designs or they can be multi link designs.

I have no idea what "in the studio, please" means but I stand by my statement. More on that in a bit...

Contrary to your last statement, not all URTs have a high pivot. The pivot can be located high and forward- the most often thought of Sweet Spot design patented by John Castellano and used by Schwinn, Ibis, WTB and a few other manufacturers and this is what most people think of when they talk about a poor performing URT. Contrary to your last statement, not all URTs have a high pivot. There have been many URTs built with low pivots, pivots around the BB as well as multi link designs.

The only way to get an active URT design is to have the pivot laterally located near the rider's center of mass- this is because of how a URT responds to mass transfer. As the rider's mass moves forward over the pivot point the bike will squat under pedaling- the closer the pivot is to the BB the worse this will be because of how the rider's mass is coupled to the swingarm/rear triangle. In a URT design the rider is both a sprung and unsprung mass, depending on the position of the rider (seated or standing.) The distance and location of the pivot relative to the BB dictates how the rider's mass affects the suspension action.
  • 1 1
 But URT bikes never worked well eg: Klein
  • 4 0
 @marcus2065
That's exactly my point. The high forward pivot URT bikes were effectively a rigid bike when you were standing- the majority of your unsprung mass is located well behind the swingarm pivot and the suspension is not active at all. If you make the pivot close to (or around) the BB the majority of your mass is much closer to the pivot (if not forward of it) so the bike is much more active but it will squat under acceleration (pedal poorly) because your forward weight transfer causes the suspension to compress- there is no way around this so that's why I say you need a fair amount of low speed compression damping (a low leverage ratio helps too.) The reason why we didn't see very many URTs back in the day that had pivot placements that were conducive to having active suspension was because we didn't have the type of damping necessary to make them work- they would have pedaled horribly.

Having said that URTs will never be a high performance solution, reason number one being the unsprung mass is too high. But not everyone needs a super high performance bike- some people have very specific design parameters that a more modern URT design may fulfill and if works for them and they're happy then who am I to criticize them...
  • 1 0
 Fair play to these guys for thinking outside the box and experimenting with something different. The future will eventually change from telescopic forks and these ideas need to be perfected.
  • 2 0
 Looks like a suspension design Cannondale would put into production just to be different, then charge $$$$$ to do fork/shock rebuilds.
  • 1 1
 Dunno why but I think this kind of frame suspension makes no sense (Not talking about the fork) it looks like it would only work while sited only no feet on pedals, how often do you people go down a trail sited at all? If you would stand you would move with the rear wheel cuz bottom bracket is on a swingarm.
Am I right?
  • 1 0
 Original z1 bombers had two caliper mounts.. and someone created a twin front disc brake. DDidn't take off back then, but bikes are faster now for sure. Maybe time to revisit it.
  • 1 0
 I thought this was a joke when I first glanced at it. Is this really where the evolution of bikes is going? Props to him for building something that works for his size and riding style, all that matters is that he likes it.
  • 8 5
 one question comes to mind... why?
  • 15 0
 engineer. Can't say more, i'm not one. But it's a wierd breed of human
  • 6 0
 Because existing bike designs didn't cater to his body type and what he wanted from his bike.
  • 8 0
 @DarrenV

to answer your question:

"Why not?"
  • 2 0
 Why not? Because he can!
  • 10 2
 Couldn't be bothered to actually READ the article could you?
  • 8 1
 ^Found the engineer
  • 1 0
 ^^Ha!
  • 3 0
 This puppy needs a Vorsrung Corset !
  • 1 0
 Well that makes some of my crazy ideas seem almost normal. Kudos to him for building a Ribi- I honestly didn't think it could be done.
  • 3 0
 It's Sea Otter not Burning Man! Razz
  • 2 0
 Legend has it that the Sea Otter Monster has a quadrilateral front end, patiently waiting for 29+ rubber.
  • 1 0
 holy shit that thing is bonkers. Love the dual brakes look. always thought it looks sweet on motor bikes and it would be awesome on mega long alpine descents.
  • 3 0
 I really hope the people who invented Boost 148 don't spot that front hub.
  • 2 0
 Terrible and fascinating both! I now have a HUGE (dirty minded bastards eh!) grin on my face. Biking needs more of this.
  • 4 0
 Great job, MacGyver.
  • 2 0
 Two 4 piston 180mm rotors front brakes "cause it heats too much"..... and a 140mm rotor back! Cool.
  • 3 0
 Is that top tube hollow?
  • 3 0
 If it isn't then it can't be called a top 'tube'.
  • 1 0
 would be difficult to slide the seatpost in
  • 2 0
 I guess the seatcollar is just there to hide the weld.
  • 2 0
 Could f**k myself up real good on that beast lol
  • 1 0
 i'm not even sure i want to try that. Might ride like a beast. I think i'm not redy for that much of a change
  • 2 0
 why didn't he just take the engine out of a crosser ?
  • 2 0
 I think he's got the seat facing the wrong way...
  • 6 4
 Go home designer, you're drunk
  • 3 1
 or on acid
  • 1 0
 Ok, so it's back long stems and narrow bars then? I best go shopping! lol
  • 1 0
 No seattube at all, this must be good! Lets see how Spesh builds the new demo without a front triangle
  • 2 0
 seems like a joke.... but wait and see
  • 1 0
 I wonder if i can get it in a 29er with a 148 dropout and 4 sets of brakes...?
  • 1 1
 Wanna see it in action....probably that's the best way to flip over handlebar to make a juicy faceplant...or maybe I am wrong...hope so.
  • 1 0
 Yeah just like this old bike: www.hendrik.org.uk/Biking/Whyte.PRST-1.gif
  • 2 0
 ...and it weighs???
  • 3 1
 As much as it needs to in order to not self destruct. It's a one off goofy bike- doesn't matter what it weighs as it's unlikely anyone else will ever ride it.
  • 4 0
 Well with CroMo tubes, 6 pound fork, double brakes, MTX rims etc etc I'm guessing at around 20kg. But as the article says, the dude is huge, so he can probably manhandle it.
  • 2 0
 the bike is awesome. really clever design, and I say that as a former suspension frame designer Wink
  • 1 0
 So please explain how rear supsension works when standing on the pedals? Wouldn't I feel all the chatter through me knees?
  • 4 0
 It weighs ~34 lbs, and hes 289 lbs...That's equivalent to a 180 lb guy riding a 21 lb bike....and this is long travel. But never mind technical information, I'm much more interested to know what color he's going to paint it.
  • 1 0
 You'd need a ladder to reach that bottom bracket.
  • 1 0
 It looks to be about 2-3cm higher than the rear axle... isn't that typical for bikes with 180mm travel?
  • 1 0
 looks like it needs a shorter stem and wider bars ..... just saying
  • 2 1
 guys...i really don't get the rear susp cinematics. i feel stupid Frown
  • 4 7
 There is none! it's a hardtail with a suspended seatpost.
  • 1 4
 yeah try to explain this to the guy that talks about virtual pivot points a couple of comments up here....
  • 3 1
 I am without speech.
  • 1 0
 The future has arrived boyz, embrace it.
  • 2 1
 It would have been so much better if it were a 27.5"
  • 1 0
 or 28.125"... that's what they're coming out with next year.
  • 1 0
 This looks errrm...interesting
  • 1 0
 Pictures my a$$ lets see that bike in action Smile
  • 1 0
 the real question is why float X and ccdbair
  • 2 0
 Please no.
  • 1 0
 Am I looking at the infamous "tetrahedron"?
  • 1 0
 Ahead of its time. No go for me
  • 1 1
 The people manufacturing the bike were so preoccupied whether they could..... they didnt stop to think weather they should.
  • 1 0
 It's like a see-saw, and you're standing in the middle
  • 1 0
 It's okay if you cycling backwards......
  • 1 0
 Check out the old Whyte PRST
  • 1 0
 I'm ordering mine in a tandem
  • 1 0
 do not take medicinal hallucinogenics when designing a mountain bike
  • 3 2
 420!
  • 2 1
 OMFG... Wink
  • 3 3
 What the f*ck am I looking at?
  • 4 2
 a mountain bike
  • 1 0
 Noooo more like walmart!
  • 1 0
 and mid-fat
  • 1 0
 Pure enduro........
  • 1 0
 Bet thats light
  • 1 0
 Looks like a swiss knife
  • 1 0
 top tube will snap
  • 3 3
 Snap!!!!
  • 3 4
 Very funny, So where is the actual bike?
  • 1 2
 @tiagomano olha.me esta merda haha xd
  • 1 1
 curtia experimentar ahah

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.027975
Mobile Version of Website