shawndashf1

It does make dual water bottles possible by allowing one on the seat tube. There are other ways to do this, but if you want a rocker controlled suspension layout, this is really the only way to do it.

Surprising the racer at the end running the carbon mag wheels wouldn't mention anything about them; they are not very common and it would be interesting to know why she chose them.

To all saying this like Specialized Demo suspension. Specialized uses a 4 bar suspension. The movement of the suspension is controlled by three links (accounting for 3 of the bars) anchored to the frame (which acts as the 4th bar as typical). And the wheel is connected to the 'floating' link (link in the middle of the other two moving links), so the wheel path can be modified/controlled at different points during the travel. In the case of the Specialized, the floating link is the seat stay link. There is a secondary linkage system that drives the shock on the demo, but this does not increase the 'bar' count on the suspension system. There are very few true 6 bar systems out there, at least that would be considered even sort of main stream. Probably the most well known/widespread 6-link bike were (or are, haven't seen one in s a while) the Felt line of suspension bikes a few years back. And more recently (but much more niche) is the DW6 linkage on the Atherton line of bikes (developed originally for Robot Bike Co). Most DW systems are 4 bar systems, but the DW6 went to 6 link as a way to accommodate the 'custom geometry build' business model of Robot Bike Co. The Felt and Atherton bikes are both 6-bar systems, but are actually pretty different. On the DW6, it is basically a standard 4 bar linkage where the chain stay link has been replaced by a small four bar linkage (so that basically the seat stay changes length as the suspension goes through it's travel. The Felt, as well as this new Saracen bike are kind of like modified short bar, 4 link system. Typically for s short bar 4 link system like a classic DW link or VPP, etc, there are two short links that connect a solid rear triangle to the frame. In the case of these two bikes, there are 2 short links that have a 'connection rod' link somewhere between the two pivot points of each of the short links. This means that the distance between the 'free' pivot point at the end of the two short links changes. In this case, you cannot use a solid rear triangle to connect to the two short links as it would lock-out any suspension movement, as a solid triangle would not allow for then end pivots of the two short links to change. So, instead of using a solid rear triangle to attach to this mini-four bar linkage attached to the frame, they use a scissor linkage (consisting basically of a long chain stay and long seat stay linkage, which does allow for movement when the distance between the end pivots of the short links changes. In the case of the Felt, the wheel axle was mounted to the chain-stay link. In the case of this new bike, they have a concentric axle pivot like the Trek suspension bikes.

Why, because the shock is in the same general location relative to the frame? The Genius used a pull-shock, didn't use a split-pivot style rear end and the linkage driving the shock is completely different. The genious shock had two chambers to all for travel adjust and lock-out via the twin lever system. This bike is basically nothing like the Scott other than the location of the shock, which is not unique to either of these bikes. It would be like saying of the 2012 Scott Genius in 2012, 'Hello 2004 Foes DHS Mono. Look it up...'

This is not a good idea. Besides the obvious drag, noise, potential for damage if something gets jammed ( don't trust it's 'failsafe'), catching clothes, shoelaces, etc in the chain, for an advantage that is not really that big of an advantage. I know because I've run a Rohloff which also allows shifting w/out pedaling and while it was cool, I really didn't think it was that big of a deal and definitely not worth the trade off of the additional drag/noise, and this system even has more negatives). I think we really have reached the point where the bike industry has run our of real ideas and just doing things that are different regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Bob Girvin's company re-branded to Pro-Flex in 1994, but he started producing full suspension frames under the previous 'Offroad' brand in 1990.

That's what I was thinking :-)

@bacondoublechee: A kg is 2.2 lbs. If everything else is equal other than the frame you are saying that the alu frame would be 5.5+ lbs heavier then the carbon frame, and this is not realistic. At most, a couple of lbs, so maybe 23.5 vs 24.5 kgs.

99.9% of the riding population couldn't complete a run top to bottom? Try 99.999%. No way 1 in 1,000 riders can do this. This is some seriously extreme stuff.

@MattP76: 'antique' doesn't mean bad. The simplicity and efficiency of a standard drivetrain is tough to beat for the majority of riders and riding situations. And efficiency matters a lot to most riders, especially if they don't have reliability or maintenance issues w/current systems (I don't have any). I have ridden a Rohloff hub'd mountain bike (not just once, for two years on my own ride) and would never, ever go back. I didn't even find it more reliable, as it had issues, but even if it hadn't, it wouldn't have been worth it. The one system that looks interesting to me is the one Shimano just patented. Uses chains and cogs instead of gears, similar to the old Honda DH race bike. Might be interesting to see how efficient they can make it. But still, kind of tough to see the point of it.