Professional racers hanging out at lift-accessed bike parks to train and test isn't out of the norm, so when
we spotted Norco's Sam Blenkinsop doing exactly that at the Whistler Bike Park last October it wasn't exactly newsworthy. The bike he was testing, however, most certainly was. Instead of his usual 200mm-travel Aurum and its Horst Link suspension that Sam has been aboard for a few seasons now, the New Zealander was on a radically different, high-single pivot carbon machine that employed a pull-linkage and idler pulley. Talk about going in a different direction...
In other words, the prototype Sam was riding last October (shown below as captured by a clandestine cell phone) is a drastic departure from everything Norco has done in the past when it comes to full-suspension, which is four-bar Horst Link bikes since 1995 when the FTS-1 was released. And, because Sam's rig featured a carbon fiber front and rear-end, I assumed the bike was only a hop, skip, and jump away from production, or at least from Norco finalizing the design.
Have you ever heard that expression about making an ass out of you and me when you assume something? Yeah, pretty much that.
It turns out that Norco, and Senior Designer Engineer Owen Pemberton in particular, weren't anywhere close to locking down the specifics of the prototype when I wrote that article. And even though Blenkinsop is now aboard a more refined example of what we saw in Whistler, Norco says that they're still not entirely sure of its final form. That makes it a bit hard to jump right into the yet to be named bike's details - we'll do exactly that down the road, though - but there's another story: Pemberton says that he and his development team have taken a somewhat unconventional route in bringing Sam's new bike to life, one that they've never taken before.
I visited Norco's headquarters in Vancouver, B.C., to find out exactly what he meant when he said that, and to learn more about the bike that Blenkinsop, Joe Smith, and Henry Fitzgerald, as well as Bryn Atkinson, will be on come 2017.
From Conception to CarbonWhen a new carbon fiber bike is being conceived and then produced, most of us probably assume that it goes through the following basic (and vastly oversimplified) steps: conception and design; manufacturing of prototypes out of aluminum (sometimes using tubing and materials from already existing bikes) in order to nail down geometry, details, and kinematics; and only then moving on to carbon for further testing. That's an immensely oversimplified layman's take on the process that likely has engineers cringing, but it you get the gist of it.
However, with their new downhill bike, Norco decided to skip over metal mules, going straight from sketches and then CAD designs to pulling freshly baked carbon fiber frames out of molds in Asia. And they took this route despite the fact that this is an all-new design front to back, one that includes some tricky to manufacture features. But, contrary to what the average person might expect, it was these exact features that forced Norco to go straight from conception to carbon. ''It was when we were going through the whole process, it was like, 'I think we're going to be handcuffed to just go straight to carbon,''' Senior Designer Engineer Owen Pemberton said of the risky sounding decision. ''It was agreed within the company that it's okay we take it to carbon, and if it doesn't work it's an R&D cost. We'll learn from it; we'll write it off. And we're still, to be honest, at that point. We haven't made that decision that we're not writing this off,'' he went on to say about the project.
 | As the designs get more complex, things start to become more of a compromise to do them. And then you've got to test one, and you're like, "Well, just remember it won't quite be like this for production." That's not testing, so you're not actually testing the product. You get the conflicts happening there. - Norco Senior Designer Engineer, Owen Pemberton |
So, without an aluminum mule, or even a rapid prototyped but unrideable frame, the development team's hand was forced by the very design that they penned. One area of the frame in particular, the 'wings' that extend down from the swingarm that the pull-links are attached to, proved to be virtually impossible to prototype out of metal, says Pemberton: ''If the shape of these weren't pretty similar, you wouldn't be able to get the geometry, and the geometry is pretty unique on this bike. If you didn't have that you wouldn't be testing what we want to test. If we tried to weld some wings hanging down this far, with the amount of force that the suspension design generates, it's just going to rip itself to pieces.'' That's a pretty clear hint that you probably won't be seeing a less expensive aluminum version of the new bike.
Frames tearing themselves apart is best avoided, of course, and while Norco's new downhill bike sports a similar silhouette to what Commencal are producing, Pemberton was quick to point out that the leverage ratio they've put to use is unlike anything else out there right now. ''The kinematics are so different in a way,'' he said of the team's work, ''and the forces that they generate are really high.'' High enough, it seems, that an aluminum version of the frame would require so much material that the geometry and layout Norco wants simply wouldn't be possible due to clearance issues, which partly explains their trip straight to the carbon ovens of Asia.
Testing The Real ThingManufacturing challenges aside, another concern of the engineer team's was more obvious: if you're not testing the real thing, why bother testing at all? During the early days of a bike's development, it's not uncommon for aluminum prototypes to be made using donor tubing borrowed from existing models; a toptube diced up here, or the downtube or forged elements there. The goal is to save time and money while creating a usable proof of concept, but what if your concept can't be proved by doing this? ''When you're trying to prototype a bike, and you're trying to prototype with aluminum, you're doing it cheap and using straight tubes and things like that,'' explained Pemberton of the challenges of trying to validate a carbon bike out of aluminum. ''Can you achieve the suspension kinematics with the layout that you want? Are you getting a true representation of the bike?''
That means that for Norco to build their new downhill machine out of aluminum, they'd have to open tubing molds. This is less expensive than going down the carbon route, but it's certainly not a small investment.
Let's not forget that one can't exactly just whip out some quick forgings when it comes to the linkage elements, meaning that they'd need to CNC machine parts that are actually designed to be made by a forging process that can't be used for only a few pieces made strictly for testing purposes. This prototyping stuff is tricky business, it seems.
 | There are tools and there's experience. Like I said, it's just rationalizing the risk of how much is this going to cost, and if we're willing to write this off if it doesn't work. We found it was worth the gamble just to do something truly different. - Norco Senior Designer Engineer, Owen Pemberton |
It turns out that the new bike's relatively compact suspension linkage, at least compared to what the Aurum uses, is actually one of the reasons that Norco was confident enough to go straight to carbon. On the Aurum, the suspension elements consist of the rocker link and both the seatstays and chainstays, and you don't need to be an engineer to know that the latter two obviously do more than just control suspension kinematics. But on the new bike, the main job of its two smaller linkage sections is exactly that, which freed Norco up to commit to a full carbon fiber swingarm.
''This design allows us to be so creative with the actual feel of the suspension, just by changing the linkages,'' Pemberton said of the compact pull-link and rocker arm setup. ''We've been through, on the computer, probably close to a hundred different iterations now. What we've actually prototyped is a first suite of four with very differently shaped curves,'' which is essentially doing bracket testing of sorts but with the bike's linkage rather than just shock setup. This would have been much, much more difficult had they stuck to a four-bar, Horst Link design as used on Aurum, simply because its suspension elements do far more than only suspension-type stuff.
Margus Riga photoMany companies, including Norco, would turn to rapid prototyping when an all-new design is in the works; not for a rideable mule - that wouldn't end well - but to check things like cable routing and clearance between moving parts. Pemberton says that they've done this with all of their carbon full-suspension bikes, including the Sight (rapid prototyped Sight frame shown to the right) but not this time around. ''A full frame in an RP [rapid prototype] is expensive. And we were trying to get these under riders fast, and there's a whole process there,'' he replied when I asked why Norco skipped this step for the first time. ''I can't remember who made the decision, but somebody made the call that we weren't going to RP it, and it was just like, 'all right.'" Whoever that someone was, he or she isn't short of faith in Pemberton's skills.
An Expensive RiskThe declining costs of carbon molds also played a factor in the decision to go straight to carbon, although Norco has cut only two molds at this point - a small for Pemberton, and a large-sized mold for their other team riders. While the costs are lower than they used to be, it's still an expensive investment; the small and large-sized molds is, according to Norco, just enough investment to sort out testing and work through kinematic iterations and suspension tuning on the trail. When everything is added up, from the large, steel external molds, all of the internal mandrel molds, bonding jigs, machining fixtures, etc, the investment in a full size run of a new carbon chassis can easily get into the six figure range.
That number puts Norco's venture, or any company who invests in carbon frame production for that matter, in a new light. It likely also had Pemberton sweating bullets while he waited for the first carbon frames to come out of the mold and be built up, and he made sure that he was the first one to swing a leg over his creation. ''There was a lot of nervousness in how it was going to ride,'' he described of that first day on the bike.
''I wanted to be the first person to ride it, especially because it is so different. I wanted to be first, but especially before we put pro racer on it,'' which is an understandable concern when you're hoping that a few top World Cup racers are going to be more than just okay with what you've put together.
Margus Riga photoAnd how did it perform? After some early fiddling with linkage and shock combinations, Pemberton came away extremely happy, he said. Only then was Blenkinsop given the go-ahead, which is when we spotted him pushing the new machine onto the chairlift at the Whistler Bike Park. The word from Pemberton is that, after a brief getting to know each other period, Sam was impressed. But, regardless of the new bike's performance, Norco stressed that they'll be keeping the Aurum in their catalog for the foreseeable future. That's not a shock given their investment in the Aurum, and especially because of the race-focused goals of Blenkinsop's new machine.
We'll have more on Norco's new downhill bike in the near future, including all the details of its suspension, geometry, and construction.
But let's go ahead and shoot the elephant in the room, "The declining costs of carbon molds also played a factor in the decision to go straight to carbon...". Glad Mike (media) had the balls to say it and Norco actually confirmed (or not).
I've been saying this for a couple of years now (I consulted with a company that develops and builds carbon parts for auto racing) that anyone in carbon manufacturing outside of the bike industry will tell you we're being fleeced. Molds have dropped considerably, material costs have come down considerably and labor is readily available.
When's the last time you saw a bike manufacturer drop the price of carbon? We haven't; prices keep going up. It's the only way that the bike industry can keep carbon as the 'holy grail' and 'end all' since they don't have anywhere to go after carbon. Want to see what happens when there's nowhere to go? Wheel sizes. You see where that's gotten us...
We're only to blame because we keep buying $3400 frames, $8K+ completes - in carbon. We're being fleeced but as long as we continue to buy at these prices, the fleecing will continue.
In a lot of ways, we're not being fleeced. I'm actually surprised at how cheaply one can buy a carbon fibre frame/component, although it becomes less surprising when you realise how many corners are being cut to hit that price point.
Making composites still is and will continue to be expensive for quite some time too come. I have huge respect for the management at Norco who have taken the decision to let R&D remain "free range". This is the mark of a business that is run by people who care about making cool stuff, rather than accountants who only look at the bottom line each quarter.
Is 'fleeced' too strong a word and/or overly dramatic? Possibly. Or not.
Yes, the tooling is only one part of the equation but I will stand behind my comments with regard to material costs and labor available (and costs) are coming down. While other industries are recognizing those economies, there is no indication that the bike industry is as well. I already pointed the reasons why above...
I am 100% behind your comment regarding Norco and 'free range' R&D. Not only it is refreshing, but also being transparent about it is cool. Thanks to Norco and PB for bring this perspective. Hopefully we'll more of this soon!
If you deleted all bike companies except Specialized and Giant and they provided all of the bikes in every class the opportunities to reduce the cost of bikes would be huge.
As it is though, even the big companies only sell small amounts of the top bikes - I cant remember the exact figure but I was told Giant expected to sell well south of 800 of the Glory in one year (It was around 2013) - not a big amount.
The bike industry is awash with small frame and componentry companies, we think that brings prices down because of competition but in reality all it does is prevent real mass production taking place - One of the reasons your motocross bikes are cheap.
A 3D printed Ti bike is going to cost a small fortune.
Surely if carbon frames were produced more prolifically that would make it more accessible to everyone? I know molds have a lifespan but doesn't economics of scale come into play here? No more need for tooling and equipment for both materials would also save costs surely? I see the day coming when aluminium is going to be a boutique material like steel or titanium... But that day seems very very far away at this point.
In contrast, human hands are very good at negotiating this kind of geometry and human brains are very good at coordinating it. The problem is, humans are kind of expensive as they require a salary rather than just a power supply and some software. For me, the best advances are being made in making the hand layup process more efficient. A really cool area of research involves "projecting" instructions onto a 3D mould, but this is still very experimental.
Is AFP possible in the bike world? Not really at this point in time. But considering the cost of AFP machines (>$1,000,000), I don't think many bike companies would see a return on investment any time soon.
Are we being fleeced? 26, 26+ 27.5, 27.5+, 29, 29+, Fat, carbon, alu, steel, Boosted forks & rear ends, non-Boosted forks and rear ends, metric shocks and conventional, new progressive geometry... It used to be 26" XC & DH way back, and now there's a crap load of travel variations: 100, 120, 140 160 mm, DH. and mix 27.5 and 29 in there too. The R&D for all those frames, materials and sizes have to be paid for somehow.
Don't get me wrong, I HATE the new high prices, cripes I'm riding a 2012 bike (thanks to 'effing arm and a leg daycare costs), but where is the crime in building a brand and making profit on one's hard work?
and I have to agree with the 1st comment in this thread , WE ARE TO BLAME for the costs , if we continue to pay whatever a company charges , some idiot out there will gladly buy it .
Devinci has the ability to sell a carbon frame for under $3K CDN and they also have the ability to sell a hand built Aluminum from for the $2K CDN mark .
But the situation you outline, does not benefit us. Any of us. And frankly is part of the problem - or is to core to the problem? My initial comment wasn't to just s**t on the prices of bikes today but rather debate increasing prices with dropping costs.
And finally, I should have also noted that I'm guilty of buying in. I'm on the latest and greatest...
Here is a link to better describe the actual process called RTM molding used by TIME (its the same as the BMC method): www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZZkpWc0MJY
you can see all the hand process in the TIME video... the BMC system automated much of this but it not really shown in the video
Maybe someone can shed some light on what the factories are like where carbon bikes are built, and what are the corners being cut to make any carbon bike frame cost less than the competition?
I know this is not always a popular topic; I'm not suggesting that we all buy bamboo bikes and hypocritically load them in the back of gas-guzzling trucks for shuttle runs far from home. Carbon isn't the only story; Norco welds some of their aluminum frames in Cambodia - I wonder what the work life of those welders/assemblers is like, and for carbon assemblers in China/Taiwan as well.
If you care about this stuff, everything we buy has ethical considerations...
Sure, it's not soccer or basketball, but A LOT of people, and a number of companies, are doing pretty well for themselves... I'm not so sure Commencal or YT are close to bankruptcy right now (an example, but a good one I think, as they only do mountain bikes).
Don't worry guys, I'm pretty sure the mtb world won't collapse tomorrow. :-)
I love riding my MTB but in no way does it match the shear adrenaline and endorphin rush of a moto at the same cost.
I used to get a new MTB yearly when the top end was $3-5K but now I choose to use the limited funds for Moto as my 2 yo dw link Enduro bike is going to be fine for several more years.
Makes you wonder where the money is going, right? Especially if the bike shops themselves are all saying they're dying on the vine.
Also check some of the other vids there paying close attention to what is shown on carbon vs AL corrosion issues and notice the new frames having AL BB shells, water bottle cage nuts, and bearing races. Perhaps the reason the manufacturers are charging ridiculous prices is because they know the frames will be toast in a matter of a few years and they'll have to replace them. I just had this happen to a Cervelo road frame where the AL BB shell was delaminating from the carbon, no doubt from corrosion. Either way, I agree the pricing is ridiculous.
Bottom line is you're right, it doesn't cost much to make a few frames, but it costs a pretty penny to sell hundreds or thousands of bikes.
Great post though, and also @hairybarnyard.
Those are the places where the most famous brands are made. The material, labor and molds are the same. So, why are we still buying the most recognized brands for 5 times the price?
Because manufacturing cost is a very small part of the equation. Add to that marketing, artwork, design cost, Carbon layout experts cost, After sale cost, Qualification tests costs, Audit cost, import fees, dealer profit and you understand why a frame that is produced EXW for 700$ is sold 3000$.
Indeed, prices should have dropped a bit. Let's say you have a 20% decrease on the manufacturing cost. It represents only a small share of the final price. When meanwhile you reduce quantities/model due to all the standards and keep adding complicated details on the frames like internal routing, aero shapes and so on, the price you pay your bike is not cheaper. you just get more details (probably unnecessary) for your money.
If you really want to purchase cheaper, options are now available which was not the case before.
Any twit can put a piece of cloth in the correct position.
Welders are skilled. You can see a quality weld.
Aluminum bikes cost less because they are manafactured in much larger numbers than carbon bike frames.
Carbon frames are costly because of limited production.
One day based on labor cost carbon fiber frames will be cheaper than aluminum frames.
Absolutely not!
Count how many welds on your bike .
Now prep those tubes that have been manipulted my a mandrel or hyro forming.
Alumimnum bikes take more labor to build and more tooling.
And welding is a skill that is accredited with a ticket.
Laying up also requires less skill than welding. You can teach most people how to layup a frame in a week. You can't teach welding in a week, and some people you simply can't teach at all. Welding is a significantly more involved skill than laying up some precut prepreg pcs in a frame mold. Period. That's just the welding though, there's more to it than layup or welds.
robotbike.co
You can have almost any angle you want.
gzmyu4ma9b-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kovit-R6-isotruss-carbon-structure-road-bike06.jpg
I worked with the guys who made that bike; its just too hard and too labor intensive since everything has to be done by hand; its also to hard to do small tubes and curves. If you could 3d print and have it be the internal structure it would be a game changer
As a side note, which I think is interesting, is the Taiwanese scooter market. Scooters there are cheap. Like, literally half the UK price for a given scooter. The reasons for the low prices are fourfold, from what I can make out.
One, they are manufactured there. No shipping, warehousing, import fees.
Two, people there are stingy on scooters. If people are going to spunk a load of cash, they want at least a VW or preferably a Beem.
Three, they use a lot of parts which have literally not changed for several product cycles. Often, every model in the range will use the exact same brake levers, calipers, switchgear.
Four, there are no advanced manufacturing techniques used, and no fancy materials.
So in bicycle terms we get a higher quality product, but we are paying more because we are so gullible on buying the latest and greatest. They are toys for rich blokes, not basic commuter tools. People will pay for their hobbies, and pay handsomely.
Not sure if bikes would be entirely as good, but probably 95% as good as they are now.
But the reality is a lot of us like the tech, we like to change things on our bikes, try new setups etc, its of riding for many, the trade off will therefore always be the price - We are essentially a mass market asking for competition level product. Motorsport parts are sold to teams that race, high end bikes sold to consumers are almost identical to those ridden at the highest WC level.
One more factor in the low price of scooters in TW... Volume. They are selling a ton of them.
www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2017/03/01/fox-and-sram-suits-continue-two-states-costs-mount
The life span of a model in the bike biz is roughly half of what it is in the car world... That plays a big part in the pricing of bikes... How many bikes go for 6 years without major changes?
Lets get into the parts that are not standard on an MTB - Drive-train from SRAM to Shimano, Brake pads, Bar diameter, chainring fitment, bottom bracket fitment, seatpost diameter, rim size and width, hub width and axle diameter, chainguide mounting, headset sizes.
There are probably some I have missed.....
You can run a Shimano 11 speed rear wheel and cassette on a SRAM 11 speed drivetrain. Just like you can run a SRAM XD driver equipped Wheel and cassette with 11 speed Shimano shifters and derailleurs..
Chain guide... How many options are still being used out side of ISCG 05 and direct mount?
Seat posts are getting better... Seems like 30.9 and 31.6 mostly winning the battle... But there are decades of other sizes still out there.
Headsets... Was getting better but now we are starting to see proprietary angle adjust designs...
Bottom bracket.. Maybe getting better?
Brakes... pretty much every one on the same page with post mount. Brake pads with not have much compatibility between brands.. ever...
Axle diameter has settled down a bit...
There's always going to be changes and they might not be backwards compatible..The brakes on my 2003 Jeep won't fit a Model T...
"Yes, the tooling is only one part of the equation but I will stand behind my comments with regard to material costs and labor available (and costs) are coming down"
labour rates overseas are going up not down, hydro rates are going up, increased employee safety / factory standards being moved up increased overhead costs - none of those things are making products cheaper
Brilliant idea.. well done Norco!
Forget about this child's play. Self adjusting head angle system is the way to go.
www.instagram.com/p/BQVhq1BAs6j/?taken-by=wakidesigns
Have one - a bit later model Supreme. Not the best idea ever - its noisy. Still love to ride that bike. Rear is sublime.
2 carbon is cheaper than aluminum(don't argue trying to convince your self you didn't get ripped off for a 10,000$ bike)
3 they will continue to charge 10,000$ for a premium spec'd rig because they can.
Maybe I am misusing the words "leverage rate" but the mechanical advantage is definitely a fixed constant if my read of the picture is accurate.
"and the distance from shock mount to link pivot is fixed" - Not exactly. The link length obvoiusly doesn't change.
Between the swingarm pull pivot and the top shock eyelet is a set of links. The geometry of those links (as well as the relative locations of the lower shock eyelet, the main swingarm pivot and the swingarm pull link pivot) all determine the effective leverage ratio at any given position in the suspension travel.
The leverage ratio is an application of conservation of torque. The input torque to the bike as a physical system is the force on the rear wheel cross-product the 'lever arm', which is the line connecting the rear axle to the swing arm pivot, in this case. The torque input to the shock is the 'lever arm' determined by the line connecting the link pivot at the frame to the shock eyelet. Conservation of torque says these two torques should be equal. (Note that the cross product is not a multiplication. Cross products are defined for vectors, which require a notion of direction, as opposed to multiplication of numbers).
No matter how complicated the intervening mechanical system is between the shock link and the swingarm, the leverage ratio is determined by just those two.
www.pinkbike.com/photo/14458532
Yes, you are right.
My linkage diagram is correct, but the leverage ratio calculation is wildly incorrect. Had to actually see it in motion to understand it. The further into the travel it goes, the more the shock link begins to multiply the effective swingarm to shock eyelet pivot length. The leverage ratio is digressive, which would create a progressive suspension feel at the end of the travel. My inaccurate calculation would actually say the opposite.
@mrleach If you really want, you can calculate the torques around each pivot and apply conservation of torque, one pivot at a time. I can tell you what will happen. At each step you will cancel factors and arrive at output torque (at each pivot in sequence) equals input torque at the swingarm. Doing this all the way to the shock link, you will get shock link output torque is equal to input torque at the swing arm, as I have claimed.
I am not really guessing about this; These are physics 1 level calculations.
You really think they went through all this trouble to get a constant leverage rate? That is not even desirable if you are putting a coil shock on the bike, it would bottom out constantly.
easier than trying to explain it. Draw your own conclusions...
www.pinkbike.com/video/466535
Anyway, I am pretty sure. My daily job is teaching math to engineering students.
I think I realized what your mistake is. In the image you linked, you think the leverage ratio is L_1 divided by L_2. That is incorrect. In the video that Vorsprung released about leverage ratios, the relevant distance is from the shock link pivot to the shock eyelet, but in that video that happens to also be the distance from the swingarm pivot to the shock eyelet since they are the same part. It only looks like the distance you want is the L_2 you have drawn; In reality the distance that is physically relevant is the one from the shock link pivot to the shock eyelet. Your L_2 should actually be the base of the orange triangle you have drawn.
Yeah, sorry about that @blacksim549 . wrong person.
I believe you might be making the same mistake the previous commenter was. In his drawing he is using L_2 as the input lever arm to the shock, which is incorrect. There is no mechanical connection in the space between the swingarm pivot and the shock eyelet, so there is no way torque can be transmitted directly through that space (which is empty space).
www.pinkbike.com/photo/14460400
@blacksim549
More data based on my rough kinematic model. I had to scale lengths between pivots based on an assumed 170mm crank arm in the spy photo... clearly I have too much time on my hands.
www.pinkbike.com/u/mrleach/album/LINKAGE
Can we agree that the torque that goes into the swingarm pivot is what comes out at the shock link? If so the result that the leverage ratio is a constant is immediate.
The leverage curve will indeed not be constant, in general, if one of those little links is present.
Every time something new comes out there's always a group of people bitching about the cost, yes top tier bikes are expensive, yes bike manufacturers make money selling them, no you don't have to buy one!
These same people always neglect the fact that there are now full suspension bikes starting new at $1000, 1x drivetrains for less than $200, great brakes for less than $60 per wheel, trail worthy hardtails for $500. None of that existed 10 years ago!
*end rant*
Pinkbike trading an exclusive for conditions which included not posting photos of a product that's been in public for months.
Enthusiast press, indeed. Totally objective, though, I'm sure.
We don't just want to know that it was directly made from carbon, but what was actually made!
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb11149179/p4pb11149179.jpg
As momma used to say (and she said it SOOOO many times) - Well if "ifs and buts were butts and nuts", we'd all be havin' an organization.
No definitively complete pics of the bike built up.