Eminent Cycles Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy to Restrucure Debts

 XD

 Beat me too it at the "ONSET" with that "HASTE" comment.

 Guess the Lawwill protect them.

 Tomac and Rotec are the only brands who make the Lawwill design look good, it was doomed from the start

 [sic]

 @Vudu74: It should be pointed out that Mert Lawwill had nothing to do with this bike. The original patents that Mert owned had expired and were not renewed which means the design is simply open for anyone to use. Sully from Rotec has a true Passion for the Lawwill design and has made some recent versions that are worth taking a look at. If you ever liked the way the Lawwill design worked I can say without hesitation that Sully took the design to the next level and did things that Mert would have done had he stayed in the bike business. Also Sully's latest designs looks really great.

 As a pedant, I feel the need to point out, if only for the benefit of non-native English users, that this is a pun on two near-homophones. "Eminent" means "famous and respected" whereas "imminent" means "about to happen". Yes, I'm lots of fun at parties.

 You win.

 @heavyp: I remember some pretty good looking Schwinns with Lawwill suspension.

 @cru-jones: Gorgeous bikes, but some of them lacked the floating brake mount designs that Rotec and Eminent use. Without the floater, the Schwinn 4-Banger had negative brake anti-rise, i.e. brake jack. I spent a couple days on a 4-Banger in the '90s and loved everything else about it - especially the metal-flake paint! - but the brake jack was unlike any other bike and, unfortunately, a deal-breaker.

 @woodlandplayer: Schwinn's 4-banger was the second full suspension bike I ever rode, so I haven't ridden a modern Lawwill design. I would love to ride a modern version of the design, I guess Eminent is not an option for now. That being said I have been waiting for 2-3 years now for Rotec to release buyable bikes.

 @R-M-R: A little tid bit of information regarding the 4-banger. Shortly before the bike went into production the Schwinn engineers decided to make changes from the version that Mert approved because the "much smarter trained engineers" knew better and put their own spin on things which effectively ruined the bike from the original proto-type that we were riding and loving.

It was a huge disappointment and a shame it carried the Lawwill name because that bike was not approved by Mert.

 @woodlandplayer: Are you familiar with the nature of the changes? My understanding is that, at that time, Mert was still convinced the low, forward pivot should be concentric with the bottom bracket, so I'm guessing that and/or the floating brake may have been points of contention.

 I'm probably gonna get a ton of downvotes for this, but eminent means famous. Imminent means about to happen.

 @R-M-R: My first downhill bike was a Schwinn Straight 6. It was the one with the pull shock. I thought it rode great, but it had the floating brake. And I was pretty inexperienced back then. Blue metal flake paint front triangle, raw aluminum rear end. Such a gorgeous bike. I still have the frame. It's hanging from the ceiling in my living room as a decoration.

 Inevitable looking at the bike

 @barp: I was once asked to leave a party as I was so wrecked I think I might have fallen asleep in the corner of a room. I was all partied out from a few days of partying and had just come from another party.

 As much as this comment

 @Vudu74: article says they aren’t going anywhere. This is a situation of a partner (who seems to have left the company) suing. They are a start up and their financial situation is no different than that of any other start up. What they’ve done makes a lot of business sense to keep moving forward.

 @woodlandplayer: He could apply for a Guinness World Record for the longest upper rocker link ever... Something Ellsworth would be jealous of...

 @DarrellW: you went to another party after that one, I hope?

 @person-named-john: No down votes for you. Everyone knew that comment was eminent

 @R-M-R: The bass-boat paint jobs were amazing...I had a green home-grown.

 @dan23dan23: That's a strength and a weakness of the Lawwill configuration. It's easier to create a stiff rear end, but there's a lot less freedom to tailor the motion ratio curve without an additional shock linkage.

 @R-M-R: I'm an excellent armchair engineer, so, some of your logic doesn't make sense. Longer links lends themselves to more flex, they create more leverage and will be inherently more flexy than a bike with shorter links. The chain stay is basically a LONG link.

 @dan23dan23: I'm an excellent trained engineer, so let me help!

Even if the links are "shorter" with a Horst or twin-short-link design, the total distance is what matters. You could create some wacky design with a dozen links between the front triangle and the rear axle, but that won't make it stiffer due to short links!

What you want is to connect the front to the rear via the shortest total distance, which the Lawwill design does nicely. Something like a Santa Cruz or Propain, among many others, is an example of a long total distance on the "seatstay" pathway. These bikes can still be plenty stiff, it's just not as easy as a design like the Lawwill that connects the dots via a straighter path.

There's one more factor. In the case of a twin-short-link, there are two sets of pivots stacked close to the middle of the bike. Pivots are a vulnerable point and can have a little less stiffness until the axles, bearings, and other pivot hardware are fully loaded. The angular deflection of the wheel may be the same whether the pivots are stacked close to the middle of the bike or moved to the end, Lawwill being the latter, but the distance of the deflection will be less if there length of the frame beyond the flex point is less.

This doesn't mean a Lawwill is automatically stiffer than a twin-short-link, it just means:

1. A shorter total length for the force path makes it easier to reduce the angle and distance of the flex.
2. Shorter members beyond the links (i.e. links pushed out toward the wheels) makes it easier to reduce the distance of the flex.

 @barp: who you calling a homophone? I'm bike-sexual, thank you very much.

 Yeah the $1.4 million dollar question I've had is why put more negative space in the rear triangle than the front triangle???

 @generationfourth: extra drink bottles?

 @generationfourth: As far as I know, a larger negative makes for a more supple initial stroke and results in a more supportive mid stroke.

 @generationfourth: they could maybe fit a water bottle mount on the seat tube above the shock. #innovation

 Yeah, I saw this headline and had two thoughts in rapid succession: (1) Never heard of that brand before; (2) Ya know ya done f'ed up when your bike brand files for bankruptcy during a bike boom.

 You will see more coming. Big brands using the boom to push out small ones. A boom does not help if there is no supply.

 @cru-jones: so right, big brands are using their purchasing power to buy up all the oem parts and manufacturing space. Smaller brands may well struggle. Even GG who make their frame in house have a problem with parts, they are currently offering one build depending on what's available which is arguably a lower spec for a larger price than their usual oem builds.

 Looks like it’s because one of the co-owners is suing as the article says, no mention of poor trading being the reason.

 @justanotherusername: the reason is that their geometry was outdated two years before they started selling bikes and they are just plain ugly. It has nothing to do with supply. I have talked with the owner before and he tried to explain to me that 1997 geometry was the best ever.

 @salespunk: Have you seen the new MT? Reach could be longer but the geo is fairly modern.

 @salespunk: you didn’t read the article or what I wrote, did you? Just made up a response based on your own experience...

I’ll try again - it states the co founder is suing the company, thus the financial difficulty.

Nowhere does the article mention supply, not sure why or where you got that from.

 @salespunk: 1997 geometry is the best. For....something... I'll let you know when I figure out what.

 @justanotherusername: didn't mean to quote you on that one, was intended for the OP.

@SeanDRC it is not nearly as bad as their previous efforts, but they are still two years behind on Reach. The Stack heights are also ridiculously tall compared to the relatively short Reach measurements.

 This is karma for what they did to my eyes.

 I’d love to see this bike with a Trust fork up front.

 I like it! the super long yoke thing looks suspect though

 @stevemokan: Then you'd have the perfect bankruptcy combo.

 Structure will go under next if there is any correlation between ugly bikes and bankruptcy. I mean, are they even selling bikes?

 Man I've never seen these before but I think it looks wicked. Way cooler than adding another boring option to the three dozen boring pre-existing Trek / Giant / Scott / Kona / GT / Cube / whatever cookie-cutter vertical-shock horst link bollocks is on the market these days.

 @stevemokan: You monster

 Wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole.

 @Xc2dh1: C'mon! There's no Pole with such a long reach.

 Having seen one on a shop floor i think they look better in the flesh, especially if you like the kind of space age look they have.

 Explain ebikes then

 @ratedgg13: Structure should sell their early alu prototype. Their bikes will never be pretty, so the industrial look of raw alu serves them well. Those carbon "production" versions were/are simply ugly. There is a thin line between industrial and ugly.
But they tried to do something really special and I respect them. Eminent on the other side has just an ugly rear linkage.

 How do you know that’s the issue? Article says co-founder is suing.

 @Preachey: giant's are a dual link, trek's are split pivot, kona's are single pivot. Just because it looks similar doesn't mean it's the same.

 @Preachey: Agreed. Eminent makes some of the most interesting looking bikes I've ever seen. If you could turn an F-117 into a bike that's what you'd get.

 @lkubica: Yeah that test mule wasn't bad. I actually got to be one of their prototype riders (until a certain pinkbike editor hucked it off a jump into a tree...). Great concept, poorly implemented.

 @stevemokan: you never go full bankruptcy

 @Monsterman156: With the yoke attached to the swing arm - when the shock is compressed it pushes the swingarm down, making the rear end - it would seem harsh and less reactive.

 @Richt2000 I don't know. Most e-bikes are fugly with their fatass asymetric down tubes and yet they sell like crazy.

 @asdas: agree, but most ebikers I’ve met have a tubby downtube themselves lol

 @justanotherusername: you keep defending this issue. Though a co-founder lawsuit is probably a big part of their chapter 11, people arguing that the bikes sell poorly because they're ugly could also be right.

 @ratedgg13: The Structure bike certainly looks strange, but by all accounts it really performs incredibly.

 it's the seat tube no connecting to the bottom bracket which makes it look strange. If they went with a more conventional design in that area i think it would be a good looking bike.

 Can’t beat the performance though! The AFS suspension does amazing! Especially on the MT with all its travel. I haven’t had anyone dislike the performance yet!

 @ajaxwalker: no one complains about the V10.xxx and Intense DH frames tho...

 It's like a 2005 scott bike

 a seat tube?

 It literally made me upset looking at it.

 Well when the rear triangle looks larger than the front... Its not a good look

 @Staktup: True, but those bikes have more visual mass in that area, with the position of the shock and rear triangle filling in that area. Also the angle of the components on those line up with what our brains think is normal.

Either way to my eyes something doesn't look "right" to me in the area above the bottom bracket.

 Totally. Instead of making moto brap noises in my head while riding, I'd be attacking the alien mothership pew pew.

 Did it 'stinkbug' under braking? I understand Lawwill's could do that.

 @sngltrkmnd: My test was limited to Duthie and I'm not a sport-class-enduro speed rider. I used the rock roll into braveheart as my reference. I didn't detect bad braking behavior. It was acoustically rattly going through rocks at speed but it was fast and tracked well, in a way that challenged the ripmo.

But heavy for a carbon frame, and the knee strikes. I couldn't ride it.

 @sngltrkmnd: that's what the floating brake mount is for.

 @conoat: better suspension performance when it’s being compressed. The floating brake mount make the suspension not bind up and move more freely while compressing the suspension

 Same experience here. Did a demo ride and the top link is so wide that I was banging into it with my legs the entire ride.

 I would say the appearance of my bikes matters to me. I mean with so many good looking options out there I don't ever see myself riding one of these.

 Old shop joke: How do you get a million dollars in the bike industry? Well, start with two million dollars...

 If you play your cards right there are hundreds of dollars to be made in the bicycle industry!

 @brianpark: lol

 Also, imagine owing your father-in-law $640,000... yikes lol

 @brianpark: I've already made TENS of dollars working in the bike industry these past 26 years...

 As a commercial banker, this is on target. Lawsuit reads like a blowup at the ownership level...investor may want out

 @rwalker82: nice to see somebody on here actually read the article

 This is actually very wise advise.

 Is the rear triangle really larger than the front or is it the camera angle?

 @Staktup: the camera angle makes it look a bit bigger,

 @OneMTB: that pic is a size small too so the front triangle is gonna be smaller in proportion to the rear

 That's a really old photo. They are all internal now.

 @conoat: really old photo and that bike appears to be a size small. So yeah the rear triangle is gonna look bigger as well

 I think the co founder suing has more to do with anything else? Read the article?

 be honest... you own a pontiac aztec dont you

 Same!

 From certain angles, I think it does.

 Lots of people on here who seem to have never heard of the brand, but they're not exactly new to Pinkbike:
www.pinkbike.com/news/review-eminent-haste-pro.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/eminent-onset-140-comp-first-ride-2019.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/eminent-cycles-launches-the-haste-first-look.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/a-sneak-peek-at-the-new-eminent-onset-mt-pond-beaver-2020.html

 Agreed! Seems like a lot of armchair quarterbacking and not a lot of empathy for the guys who sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal money into their passion for mountain biking. Whether one likes the appearance of the bikes or not, consider the guys who put in the work and the dollars to try to bring something new to market. It is HARD to start a business. Most startups fail, regardless of economic conditions. Falling on hard times now might have something to do with not being able to shift frames because there are no components, for example.

 I am starting a GoFundMe campaign for them. Please show your goodwill with an early donation.

 @onemind123: I think you're going to find it a tough sell to get people to donate money to a commercial entity. I am sympathetic, but I've got my own problems and I can't see trading dollars for ... nothing. If there were an investment opportunity where I could purchase non-voting shares and be entitled to a dividend if the company attains profitability, that might be a different matter.

 Another person that didn’t read the article? - miss the suing bit by confounder?

 @justanotherusername: They probably wouldn't be suing if the money had been rolling in.

 @chakaping: yea possibly, but also possibly a completely different reason.

 @justanotherusername: The "father-in-law" bit sets the alarm bells ringing for several possibilities TBF, but most-likely buyer's remorse.

 And at the start of this I was thinking what could make that thing uglier. A trust fork would do the trick.

 But that's a 36... (I'll just show myself out)