JamesJozef

Hoes is big mad about the WB/CS length. God forbid we have options in this market segment. Looking at the geo as a whole it’s clearly not intended to be a race bike and demanding a 1385wb with 475 stays is counterproductive to what this bike is supposed to be.

When did chainstay length become the base unit of bike geometry? Should BB height also change as a fraction of CS length? It’s a flawed premise to build every other dimension off of CS length regardless of any current hyperfixation on it. Why would the ratios differ on the smallest to largest sizes? - physical packaging of 29” wheel driving minimum possible CS length on small size. Do you want a mullet or do you want to retain the 29” wheel in the smallest size? It’s a decision that has to be made. - Riders on larger sizes generally weight more and thus are a bigger portion of the mass of the system. It’s generally easier for a bigger rider to get their mass back further than smaller/lighter riders, so the actual feel of the bike with proportionally longer stays isn’t much different. This point is subjective, but rider feedback is a huge part of product development.

Came here just to see everyone malding about the CS length. Was not disappointed.

Because they’re convenient and they work and the majority of the consumer market for a product like Ochain isn’t chasing the last tenths of a percent of drivetrain efficiency.

If the variance in concavity is indeed due to ceramic coating application, adding any further machining operations will still produce the same variation. There is a QC issue with the machining on these that they’re blaming on the coating for PR purposes. What a joke at this price point.

The dual crown is a more efficient design in regard to fore-aft stiffness, but this is such an over simplification of the problem and assuming many things are the same between the designs when they are not. Tube diameter, how the tubes are shaped (internally and externally), along with the geometry of the crown(s) are all going to influence stiffness. There’s many ways to solve this problem, and it’s not all marketing talk.

@VelkePivo: American tries to observe world events without projecting their own insecurities challenge (impossible)

@AgrAde: We're in the same boat then. Spokes are almost an ideal use case. How are spokes loaded? In which type of loading is a unidirectional layup strongest? That's the entire argument. Whether the cost is worth it for whatever perceived benefit you get is an entire different story, but to call spokes the "stupidest" application of a carbon composite is laughable.

@Compositepro: Tell me you don’t understand carbon’s mechanical properties without telling me you don’t understand carbon’s mechanical properties.

@nzandyb: This is not what happens. Members aren’t infinitely rigid. I was speaking about the chainstay torsional rigidity in vacuum, but if you want to examine the entire system, it’s the same argument albeit much more complex. The overall torsional rigidity of the rear end is a product of the rigidity of the components that make up the assembly, their geometry relative to each other, and the rigidity of their attachment points to the front triangle. If you make the chainstays more torsionally rigid, you make the entire rear end more torsionally rigid. Same goes for any component. The extent to which any single component affects the overall stiffness is dependent on design and geometry. The bridge on the seat stays/rocker link/ any other component that ties each side of the triangle together has a huge impact on torsional stiffness for the same reasons I explained in my previous comment, though the loading changes to be less about torsion on the seat stays, as they are less parallel to the axis we’re thinking about torsion around. Go grab the seat tube and rear wheel on a Ripmo V2 and see how much torsional compliance that bike has. The lower link has no bridge whatsoever, it’s two independent links and you can watch them deflect different amounts side to side. It has a huge effect on the way that bike rides. Try the same thing on 4060/Hightower/more convention VPP/DW bike and the difference is immediately apparent. Everything that ties the sides of the assembly together is providing torsional rigidity, and eliminating any part of it results in more deflection/compliance. It’s a system and is tuned as such.