Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/20/10738/s1200_IMG_20210420_220848.jpg[/img]
I
Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
I
So it looks like the stanchion plane and the head tube plane are not parallel. Presumably this is to create variable offset during fork compression which could result in near-constant mechanical trail. (i.e. on a standard fork as you go through travel your effective head angle steepens and reduces your trail thus effectively changing the steering characteristic.) However, reducing the offset relative to travel counteracts the steepening HA and could preserve trail.
Honest question: Assuming this characteristic improves steering feel (it might not). Could you get past the bent/broken look and run it on your bike?
So it looks like the stanchion plane and the head tube plane are not parallel. Presumably this is to create variable offset during fork compression which...
So it looks like the stanchion plane and the head tube plane are not parallel. Presumably this is to create variable offset during fork compression which could result in near-constant mechanical trail. (i.e. on a standard fork as you go through travel your effective head angle steepens and reduces your trail thus effectively changing the steering characteristic.) However, reducing the offset relative to travel counteracts the steepening HA and could preserve trail.
Honest question: Assuming this characteristic improves steering feel (it might not). Could you get past the bent/broken look and run it on your bike?
Nope. I like the forks, but I’m on that they just look wrong.
So it looks like the stanchion plane and the head tube plane are not parallel. Presumably this is to create variable offset during fork compression which...
So it looks like the stanchion plane and the head tube plane are not parallel. Presumably this is to create variable offset during fork compression which could result in near-constant mechanical trail. (i.e. on a standard fork as you go through travel your effective head angle steepens and reduces your trail thus effectively changing the steering characteristic.) However, reducing the offset relative to travel counteracts the steepening HA and could preserve trail.
Honest question: Assuming this characteristic improves steering feel (it might not). Could you get past the bent/broken look and run it on your bike?
Thinking the installer simple spun the lower legs & stem around 180'. Basically an error.
The fork is a prototype with a special crown machuned by Pole for Cornelius Kapfinger aka mr Intend. Leo shared a pic in the Pole Rider group on Facebook. It is angled at the crown similar to the first X Fusion Revel HLR prototypes. Those were also USD and angled for better angle towards bigger hits. Similar to high pivots, really.
But I'm not sure how much sense there is in doing that, you're lengthening the trail and worsening the performance on flat landings. Chunder performance will be better, but we have slack headangles already, so...
But I'm not sure how much sense there is in doing that, you're lengthening the trail and worsening the performance on flat landings. Chunder performance will...
But I'm not sure how much sense there is in doing that, you're lengthening the trail and worsening the performance on flat landings. Chunder performance will be better, but we have slack headangles already, so...
With USD-fork, and good bushing distance, you may negate some of the negativities of the flat landing part.
But you as you go through travel, the trail shortens because of the steeper head angle, so making the offset shorter throughout the travel will make the negative effects of steeper (instant) head angle a bit less negative.
Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/20/10738/s1200_IMG_20210420_220848.jpg[/img]
I
Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
I
But I'm not sure how much sense there is in doing that, you're lengthening the trail and worsening the performance on flat landings. Chunder performance will...
But I'm not sure how much sense there is in doing that, you're lengthening the trail and worsening the performance on flat landings. Chunder performance will be better, but we have slack headangles already, so...
With USD-fork, and good bushing distance, you may negate some of the negativities of the flat landing part.
But you as you go through travel, the...
With USD-fork, and good bushing distance, you may negate some of the negativities of the flat landing part.
But you as you go through travel, the trail shortens because of the steeper head angle, so making the offset shorter throughout the travel will make the negative effects of steeper (instant) head angle a bit less negative.
You won't be able to achieve drastically higher bushing spacing on a single crown USD fork compared to an RSU fork, but the loads in the bushings should actually be higher, as the bushings are further away from the point where the load comes in.
Better view of the tread on the yet to be released continental proto. [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/23/10745/s1200_20210423_202546.jpg[/img]
Better view of the tread on the yet to be released continental proto.
People who put zip ties over their fork logos should take a lesson in bike design and aesthetics
Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/20/10738/s1200_IMG_20210420_220848.jpg[/img]
I
Anodized Pole Stamina and Intend BC experimenting with fork offset/angle?
I
The commented on instagram saying the fork was an Intend prototype which is angled at the crown to achieve varying trail numbers at different points in the travel.
I remember my 2015 Pike on my Reign 1 with matching decals. Don't remember the fender I ran, but it was uncanny, the zip ties landed EXACTLY on the 'black' like above the original square Rock Shox logo, like the line was meant to be there for the fender.
Will we see a Bell Full 10 with this concentric foam slipping layer system? https://www.vitalmx.com/videos/features/First-Ride-Bell-Moto-10-Spherical-Helmet,19772/B-Rez991,72128 Concussion awareness seems really high in moto and MTB media recently, but pushing in the other direction is the emergence of the newer ASTM-1952 enduro full face helmets full of holes that maybe are maybe aren't allowed in DH or BMX (?). And over-the-ear half shells. By which I mean that from XC to enduro, comfort is still being given first priority and MTB helmet makers appear unanimous in saying we can have enough safety without compromising comfort. Crumple zones to reduce chin bar pressure on the clavicles looks neat too
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/26/10749/s1200_Screen_Shot_2021_04_27_at_8.23.07_AM.jpg[/img]
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
That’s right! Looks like a new ice tech option for 6 bolt is on the way
Will we see a Bell Full 10 with this concentric foam slipping layer system? [url=https://www.vitalmx.com/videos/features/First-Ride-Bell-Moto-10-Spherical-Helmet,19772/B-Rez991,72128]https://www.vitalmx.com/videos/features/First-Ride-Bell-Moto-10-Spherical-Helmet,19772/B-Rez991,72128[/url] Concussion awareness seems really high in moto and MTB media recently...
Will we see a Bell Full 10 with this concentric foam slipping layer system? https://www.vitalmx.com/videos/features/First-Ride-Bell-Moto-10-Spherical-Helmet,19772/B-Rez991,72128 Concussion awareness seems really high in moto and MTB media recently, but pushing in the other direction is the emergence of the newer ASTM-1952 enduro full face helmets full of holes that maybe are maybe aren't allowed in DH or BMX (?). And over-the-ear half shells. By which I mean that from XC to enduro, comfort is still being given first priority and MTB helmet makers appear unanimous in saying we can have enough safety without compromising comfort. Crumple zones to reduce chin bar pressure on the clavicles looks neat too
Sure hope so. Always liked the way the way the Full 9 fit but it's very long in the tooth. Definitely falling behind the others in features and tech advancements. Not that TLD and the others aren't making great helmets, just nice to have more options.
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/04/26/10749/s1200_Screen_Shot_2021_04_27_at_8.23.07_AM.jpg[/img]
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
That’s right! Looks like a new ice tech option for 6 bolt is on the way
Are the Syndicate on 6-bolt hubs? Also, the rotor seems to have the same shape holes on the braking surface as the old rt-99, the current mt900 rotor has very different ones. Why go back in design? Would be good to finally have a 6-bolt super-rotor from Shimano, it only took them 9 years to make it (a full decade if we take into account the prototype stages of the first freeza-rotor (the rt-99).
Are the Syndicate on 6-bolt hubs? Also, the rotor seems to have the same shape holes on the braking surface as the old rt-99, the current...
Are the Syndicate on 6-bolt hubs? Also, the rotor seems to have the same shape holes on the braking surface as the old rt-99, the current mt900 rotor has very different ones. Why go back in design? Would be good to finally have a 6-bolt super-rotor from Shimano, it only took them 9 years to make it (a full decade if we take into account the prototype stages of the first freeza-rotor (the rt-99).
Syndicate are on Chris King, and they have for some insane reason decided to go Center Lock only. WHYYYYYY! Never Chris King ever again. Center Lock is the devil's work. It is bad for everyone but the poor mechanic building hundreds of bikes in a fast pace.
Well centerlock is 'backwards compatible' with 6-bolt by using an adapter, so they have only one SKU. It's also probably easier to machine the interface, even more so if they can reliably knurl the spline interface instead of cutting it - if yes, the hub should be machined very quickly on one machine, while a 6-bolt interface adds quite a bit of complexity.
A CL rotor (without an adapter) is then a lot more complicated, which doesn't make as much sense since it's a wear item, compared to standard, steel, one-piece 6-bolt rotors. But maybe using the CL interface we can have a rethink on the rotors? Use an aluminium carrier and have the steel braking surface screwed onto it, maybe even in a floating fashion? So we keep the complicated aluminium carrier and just replace the steel strip that is the actual braking surface? That would also add quite a bit of stiffness to the currently massive (200 and 220 rotors are becoming the norm) rotors and thus possibly more precision to the positioning while not costing a lot weight-wise. And designed properly, a 220, 180 and a 140 mm rotor might be possible to be cut from the same piece of steel with the 200 and the 160 doing the same, so less material would be used as well.
Sure, it's road specific where it appears the braking requirements actually are quite a bit different to MTB, but yeah, I've seen some chewed up Shimano sandwich rotors before, which must be fun to ride on (it was in a multi-day enduro race, luckily the rotor gave up the ghost on the last day).
Serious question, what is the issue people have with centerlock? Am I the only one who's enjoyed using them? Quick to change and install. I've never had an issue personally. Have I just been lucky?
I don't think the mounting of it is the issue, it's the wild west of it all. It's hard to get Sram rotors in centerlock, the fancy ones are only up to 180 mm, do the cheaper ones come in 220 mm? How much torque can a CL interface hold up to, is a 220 mm rotor even OK for that? There are no Hope/Magura floating rotors, etc. etc.
You can get around that with adapters, but there are some cautions going against that and it's possible to have issues with thicker (aluminium carrier) rotors as the CL nut is designed to clamp down on the 2 mm stainless steel flange of a 6 bolt rotor. Etc.
Like I said, do a CL spider carrier with say 6 to 10 bolt holes and sell it in 3 or 4 different sizes (maybe even less?) and then just offer braking surface swappers for when it gets worn out. If you're doing the complicated CL rotor interface, might as well complicate it a bit further, make it thick an AL to be stiff and then do the minimum in stainless steel.
As for my experiences, no issues, but as I haven't run Shimano brakes since 2007, I have little desire to go CL on the hubs, if I don't REALLY need to, as I'll very likely be running 6 bolt rotors (or rotors predominantly available in 6 bolt variants) anyway. Free reign, I'd go with the "Intend" multi-little-hole rotors in any case, regardless of the brake caliper. So I see little logic in running CL hubs if I don't need to.
Do we need a new standard? Don't want to say that, but with the rotor sizes we're getting to, I think it might make sense to do things a bit differently (larger BCD maybe?) or at least revisit what we have currently (so bolts vs. CL, evaluate manufacturing issues and benefits, costs, what it means for the rotors, etc.) and try to rally the industry behind a common goal. WHich will happen never of course.
RS Domain
Honest question: Assuming this characteristic improves steering feel (it might not). Could you get past the bent/broken look and run it on your bike?
As for bent forks...
https://www.mtbr.com/attachments/forcella-20air-way-2085ssv-20tricarbon…
But you as you go through travel, the trail shortens because of the steeper head angle, so making the offset shorter throughout the travel will make the negative effects of steeper (instant) head angle a bit less negative.
New Shimano rotors on the Syndicate bikes or are my eyes playing a trick on me?
A CL rotor (without an adapter) is then a lot more complicated, which doesn't make as much sense since it's a wear item, compared to standard, steel, one-piece 6-bolt rotors. But maybe using the CL interface we can have a rethink on the rotors? Use an aluminium carrier and have the steel braking surface screwed onto it, maybe even in a floating fashion? So we keep the complicated aluminium carrier and just replace the steel strip that is the actual braking surface? That would also add quite a bit of stiffness to the currently massive (200 and 220 rotors are becoming the norm) rotors and thus possibly more precision to the positioning while not costing a lot weight-wise. And designed properly, a 220, 180 and a 140 mm rotor might be possible to be cut from the same piece of steel with the 200 and the 160 doing the same, so less material would be used as well.
As for the sandwich construction, I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utMchnpW1vo
Sure, it's road specific where it appears the braking requirements actually are quite a bit different to MTB, but yeah, I've seen some chewed up Shimano sandwich rotors before, which must be fun to ride on (it was in a multi-day enduro race, luckily the rotor gave up the ghost on the last day).
You can get around that with adapters, but there are some cautions going against that and it's possible to have issues with thicker (aluminium carrier) rotors as the CL nut is designed to clamp down on the 2 mm stainless steel flange of a 6 bolt rotor. Etc.
Like I said, do a CL spider carrier with say 6 to 10 bolt holes and sell it in 3 or 4 different sizes (maybe even less?) and then just offer braking surface swappers for when it gets worn out. If you're doing the complicated CL rotor interface, might as well complicate it a bit further, make it thick an AL to be stiff and then do the minimum in stainless steel.
As for my experiences, no issues, but as I haven't run Shimano brakes since 2007, I have little desire to go CL on the hubs, if I don't REALLY need to, as I'll very likely be running 6 bolt rotors (or rotors predominantly available in 6 bolt variants) anyway. Free reign, I'd go with the "Intend" multi-little-hole rotors in any case, regardless of the brake caliper. So I see little logic in running CL hubs if I don't need to.
Do we need a new standard? Don't want to say that, but with the rotor sizes we're getting to, I think it might make sense to do things a bit differently (larger BCD maybe?) or at least revisit what we have currently (so bolts vs. CL, evaluate manufacturing issues and benefits, costs, what it means for the rotors, etc.) and try to rally the industry behind a common goal. WHich will happen never of course.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation