that means that practical guide only applies to road track and cyclocross. as stated in the preceding paragraph:
"This document does not replace Articles 1.3.001 to...
that means that practical guide only applies to road track and cyclocross. as stated in the preceding paragraph:
"This document does not replace Articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.034 of the UCI Regulations, but
rather complements them and illustrates the technical rules defined therein. The objective
of this document is to offer a definitive interpretation in order to facilitate understanding
and application of the Regulations by international commissaires, teams and manufacturers."
The Technical Regulation itself does not make a differentiation of rule 1.3.006 (re: Commercialization) applying only to certain disciplines, and is interpreted to apply to all cycling disciplines subject to UCI regulation.
The "UCI Approved' stickers only apply to bikes subject to the Technical Specifications (Chapter 3 Subsection 2, items 1.3.011 through 1.3.025), as that subsection states:
"Except where stated to the contrary, the following technical specifications shall apply to
bicycles used in road, track and cyclo-cross racing.
The specific characteristics of bicycles used in mountain bike, BMX, BMX Freestyle,
trials, indoor cycling and paracycling for riders with disabilities are set out in the part
regulating the discipline in question."
That's why you don't see "UCI Approved" stickers on mountain bikes, as the Technical Specifications rules are not applicable.
UCI Part I of the Technical Regulation (containing the above referenced chapters & subsection):
all that being said, just because the rules state something, doesn't have any bearing as to how consistently the UCI enforces those rules, especially when it comes to downhill.
It seems like article 1.3.004 makes the commercialization point moot for MTB.
1.3.004 Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn
or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment
mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, telemetry
device, sensors, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI.
that means that practical guide only applies to road track and cyclocross. as stated in the preceding paragraph:
"This document does not replace Articles 1.3.001 to...
that means that practical guide only applies to road track and cyclocross. as stated in the preceding paragraph:
"This document does not replace Articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.034 of the UCI Regulations, but
rather complements them and illustrates the technical rules defined therein. The objective
of this document is to offer a definitive interpretation in order to facilitate understanding
and application of the Regulations by international commissaires, teams and manufacturers."
The Technical Regulation itself does not make a differentiation of rule 1.3.006 (re: Commercialization) applying only to certain disciplines, and is interpreted to apply to all cycling disciplines subject to UCI regulation.
The "UCI Approved' stickers only apply to bikes subject to the Technical Specifications (Chapter 3 Subsection 2, items 1.3.011 through 1.3.025), as that subsection states:
"Except where stated to the contrary, the following technical specifications shall apply to
bicycles used in road, track and cyclo-cross racing.
The specific characteristics of bicycles used in mountain bike, BMX, BMX Freestyle,
trials, indoor cycling and paracycling for riders with disabilities are set out in the part
regulating the discipline in question."
That's why you don't see "UCI Approved" stickers on mountain bikes, as the Technical Specifications rules are not applicable.
UCI Part I of the Technical Regulation (containing the above referenced chapters & subsection):
all that being said, just because the rules state something, doesn't have any bearing as to how consistently the UCI enforces those rules, especially when it comes to downhill.
It seems like article 1.3.004 makes the commercialization point moot for MTB.
1.3.004 [b]Except in mountain bike racing,[/b] no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn
or...
It seems like article 1.3.004 makes the commercialization point moot for MTB.
1.3.004 Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn
or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment
mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, telemetry
device, sensors, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI.
Rule 1.3.004 means that any technical innovations (or prototypes) must be reviewed and approved by the UCI before they can be used in competition - with the exception of mountain bikes.
So MTB racers / teams / companies can run bikes / components / clothing / etc that are considered "technical innovations" (prototypes) without getting them approved by the UCI before using them in competition. This does not exempt mountain bikes from the commercialization requirements listed in 1.3.006.
From the clarification guide on Rule 1.3.004:
Technical innovations must be submitted to the UCI in advance and approved by the
Equipment Commission before they can be used in competition.
A technical innovation is defined as a new system, device or item of equipment that allows
an improvement of a rider’s performance, adds new functions to the bicycle, modifies the
bicycle’s general appearance or affects any other aspect of the UCI regulations.
If there is any doubt, it is preferable to present new equipment to the UCI which will
determine whether it is a matter of a technical innovation or not. New equipment will be
carefully studied by experts in order to evaluate the benefits and how such equipment could
improve cycle sport as well as assessing the risks and any potential divergence from the
regulations. The most appropriate decision will then be taken in the interest of the sport.
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs instead of 5 in the drivetrain because its faster aswell... lol
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs...
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs instead of 5 in the drivetrain because its faster aswell... lol
Does anyone have an idea of when Continental is going to release its new range of tyres? Seems like the Atherton Continental team has been running...
Does anyone have an idea of when Continental is going to release its new range of tyres? Seems like the Atherton Continental team has been running the prototypes for a while now.
Seems like Conti is giving Michelin a run for its money in the time to market department.
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs...
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs instead of 5 in the drivetrain because its faster aswell... lol
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the bikes are so different)
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs...
so, anther brand that moves suspension back to a stand up shock because its faster, wonder when they'll all realise and go back to 4 cogs instead of 5 in the drivetrain because its faster aswell... lol
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the...
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the bikes are so different)
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
The 'Ummm. What?!' is there for a reason. What in the name of all that is holy is a 'stand up shock'? And what the hell is 4 cogs and 5 cogs in the drivetrain?!
If your intention is to confuse people, a) you're doing a good job, b) don't be surprised by the downvotes.
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the...
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the bikes are so different)
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
Well if you're leaving out DH that's kind of cheating, since the new Session and the last few generations of the Supreme DH/prototype have all done really well across all sorts of races. Ignoring them, you only have a few examples of high-pivot designs trickling down to the enduro/trail level (Forbidden, Norco, Kavenz, Deviate, GT, Cannondale) and they're all relatively unproven. Now, you could say that manufacturers are starting to move away from a true "high" pivot and lowering it a little (see the GT, Cannondale, and the Supreme prototype) to make the handling closer to a 'regular' design while still having a slightly more rearward axle path, but it has still been shown at this point that on the right tracks, high-pivot designs are a big improvement. Plus, those designs aren't "simple", Yeti just unveiled one of the most complex designs I've seen on a mid-travel bike only yesterday, and they even have another patent for raising the virtual pivot of that "Sixfinity" design and adding an idler pulley. And if I may, saying 'anyone who disagrees is clearly just sheep' really isn't helping your case here.
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11443/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_9.59.44_AM.jpg[/img] [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11444/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_10.00.28_AM.jpg[/img]
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?
or maybe new nomad 5 colorway, front triangle is very similar... can't say if those are 29 or 27,5 wheels.
This may have already been discussed; Ethan from GT is running the Force again this weekend, but looks like they are now running 225x75 trunnion shock with offset bushing, which probably gets about 190mm of travel compared to the 160mm out of the 230x65 stock shock.
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the upper link in a different place?
I think the Commencal might have a floating shock though, can’t remember…
This may have already been discussed; Ethan from GT is running the Force again this weekend, but looks like they are now running 225x75 trunnion shock...
This may have already been discussed; Ethan from GT is running the Force again this weekend, but looks like they are now running 225x75 trunnion shock with offset bushing, which probably gets about 190mm of travel compared to the 160mm out of the 230x65 stock shock.
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the...
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the bikes are so different)
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
I disagree regarding going to a simple suspension pivot, however must agree on the HP thing.
Have a very fit buddy that stalks me on the trails that seemed to struggle a lot more when pedaling on his new HP bike. Best looking bike I've ever seen however.
Just don't think HP's are appropriate for any bike where the rider cares about climbing speed. Although we don't race to the top, we'd all like to be able to stay together.
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the...
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the upper link in a different place?
I think the Commencal might have a floating shock though, can’t remember…
Not that striking. I mean it's similar, it's a 6-bar, but the main difference is that the Commencal variant keeps the two main triangle connected links at a fairly set distance apart, while the positioning of the dogbone on the Yeti means the lower link rotates upwards in the first part of the travel, then down on the latter part. Just like on their Switch (SB66) and Switch Inifinity suspension systems.
BTW, I think Ibis DW link bikes do something vaguely similar, if I'm not mistaken the top link rotates over the vertical line, which makes the lower link to rise in the first part, then rotate back down in the second part of the travel.
As for a full floater Commencal design, it's a negative. And if comparing the Commencal to anything, it's actually similar to Felt's Equilink system. Much more so than the Yeti, but it's still similar.
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the...
more brands have been going back to a simple suspension pivot and through all the testing and racing enduro the Non-hp are faster...(minus dh as the bikes are so different)
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
I disagree regarding going to a simple suspension pivot, however must agree on the HP thing.
Have a very fit buddy that stalks me on the...
I disagree regarding going to a simple suspension pivot, however must agree on the HP thing.
Have a very fit buddy that stalks me on the trails that seemed to struggle a lot more when pedaling on his new HP bike. Best looking bike I've ever seen however.
Just don't think HP's are appropriate for any bike where the rider cares about climbing speed. Although we don't race to the top, we'd all like to be able to stay together.
The number of privateers on Supremes and race results on them and, at the end of the day, the number of at least somewhat high pivot designs coming out in DH should be a testament that the idler is not there for nothing (and the pivot height). The GT & co school of thought, when it comes to height, is kinda like putting the suspension geometry and pivot placement (and the resulting somewhat rearward axle path) that we saw with 26" bikes on a 29er and then somehow dealing with pedal kickback. Thus the idler. The Norco (both the Aurum and the Range) and the single pivot Supreme are different in this regard, their pivots are quite a bit higher.
Given the Pinkbike field test and the comments they had there and the overall comments about chains and idlers wearing out and idler bikes being more noisy, I don't think we'll see a lot of them outside 170+ mm travel bikes, so hard core enduro racers and DH bikes. So bikes that aren't pedaled around on full day epics, but if they are, their owners are a bit insane for doing it and know what they're getting into.
This might also go hand in hand with the comments above about DH bikes getting more popular. These kinds of bikes have gotten so race oriented, that for everyday use they are too much. Which is where trailbikes come in and we don't see a lot (except the Druid, any basically) high pivots in this category.
Can we also just acknowledge how good we have it these days when it comes to bikes and their capabilities?
Just looks like a 5010, especially given the older decals on the fork.
I checked the 5010 on their website and didn’t see that color. Looks like I should have tried harder to find past years colorways because it looks a 2020 5010. I guess I’m more excited for the new megatower than thought, I completely blocked out the older decals on the fork.
This may have already been discussed; Ethan from GT is running the Force again this weekend, but looks like they are now running 225x75 trunnion shock...
This may have already been discussed; Ethan from GT is running the Force again this weekend, but looks like they are now running 225x75 trunnion shock with offset bushing, which probably gets about 190mm of travel compared to the 160mm out of the 230x65 stock shock.
That is a Fury, just the DH bike.
Force's cables exit from TT, link has open windows, main pivot has a pinch bolt.
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the...
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the upper link in a different place?
I think the Commencal might have a floating shock though, can’t remember…
Yep, they're both variations on the same type of six-bar design. Still different kinematics though, even though they're accomplished by what may look like a few minor tweaks.
Not that striking. I mean it's similar, it's a 6-bar, but the main difference is that the Commencal variant keeps the two main triangle connected links...
Not that striking. I mean it's similar, it's a 6-bar, but the main difference is that the Commencal variant keeps the two main triangle connected links at a fairly set distance apart, while the positioning of the dogbone on the Yeti means the lower link rotates upwards in the first part of the travel, then down on the latter part. Just like on their Switch (SB66) and Switch Inifinity suspension systems.
BTW, I think Ibis DW link bikes do something vaguely similar, if I'm not mistaken the top link rotates over the vertical line, which makes the lower link to rise in the first part, then rotate back down in the second part of the travel.
As for a full floater Commencal design, it's a negative. And if comparing the Commencal to anything, it's actually similar to Felt's Equilink system. Much more so than the Yeti, but it's still similar.
Just checked a video of DW link in action, and it seems the lower link moves a little, and then almost stops about half way in the travel.
I thought the inflection point was going to be earlier in the travel. It does rotate downwards juuuust slightly when the swingarm rotates around the lower link (when it appears to be stationary compared to the main frame).
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11443/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_9.59.44_AM.jpg[/img] [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11444/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_10.00.28_AM.jpg[/img]
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11443/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_9.59.44_AM.jpg[/img] [img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/14/11444/s1200_Screenshot_2021_09_14_at_10.00.28_AM.jpg[/img]
Did anybody else notice the blue Santa Cruz in the syndicate’s snowshoe day 1 video? Anyone else think it might be the next megatower?
New color for the 5010 maybe?
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2021/09/15/11447/s1200_Captura_de_Pantalla_2021_09_15_a_la_s_10.08.46.jpg[/img]
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the...
Is it just me or is the new yeti ebike suspension design strikingly similar to the new Commencal DH bike just with the dogbone joining the upper link in a different place?
I think the Commencal might have a floating shock though, can’t remember…
Not that striking. I mean it's similar, it's a 6-bar, but the main difference is that the Commencal variant keeps the two main triangle connected links...
Not that striking. I mean it's similar, it's a 6-bar, but the main difference is that the Commencal variant keeps the two main triangle connected links at a fairly set distance apart, while the positioning of the dogbone on the Yeti means the lower link rotates upwards in the first part of the travel, then down on the latter part. Just like on their Switch (SB66) and Switch Inifinity suspension systems.
BTW, I think Ibis DW link bikes do something vaguely similar, if I'm not mistaken the top link rotates over the vertical line, which makes the lower link to rise in the first part, then rotate back down in the second part of the travel.
As for a full floater Commencal design, it's a negative. And if comparing the Commencal to anything, it's actually similar to Felt's Equilink system. Much more so than the Yeti, but it's still similar.
Do stop trying to come up with fancy ways of saying bike.
Its bike and ebike.
We don’t need anything more. Not “acoustic”. Not “analog” (or analogue). Not “pedal only”.
Inventing new ways of saying bike just makes us all look like cretins.
Surely you don’t think that anyone is that stupid that they don’t understand the difference.
1.3.004 Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn
or carried by any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment
mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication, telemetry
device, sensors, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI.
So MTB racers / teams / companies can run bikes / components / clothing / etc that are considered "technical innovations" (prototypes) without getting them approved by the UCI before using them in competition. This does not exempt mountain bikes from the commercialization requirements listed in 1.3.006.
From the clarification guide on Rule 1.3.004:
Technical innovations must be submitted to the UCI in advance and approved by the
Equipment Commission before they can be used in competition.
A technical innovation is defined as a new system, device or item of equipment that allows
an improvement of a rider’s performance, adds new functions to the bicycle, modifies the
bicycle’s general appearance or affects any other aspect of the UCI regulations.
If there is any doubt, it is preferable to present new equipment to the UCI which will
determine whether it is a matter of a technical innovation or not. New equipment will be
carefully studied by experts in order to evaluate the benefits and how such equipment could
improve cycle sport as well as assessing the risks and any potential divergence from the
regulations. The most appropriate decision will then be taken in the interest of the sport.
TIME TIME.
the downvotes on my comment are clearly the sheep of the HP squad
If your intention is to confuse people, a) you're doing a good job, b) don't be surprised by the downvotes.
I think the Commencal might have a floating shock though, can’t remember…
https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/users/2/photos/147651/s1600_Ethan_Craik_s_GT_Fury_90_s_1.jpg
Have a very fit buddy that stalks me on the trails that seemed to struggle a lot more when pedaling on his new HP bike. Best looking bike I've ever seen however.
Just don't think HP's are appropriate for any bike where the rider cares about climbing speed. Although we don't race to the top, we'd all like to be able to stay together.
BTW, I think Ibis DW link bikes do something vaguely similar, if I'm not mistaken the top link rotates over the vertical line, which makes the lower link to rise in the first part, then rotate back down in the second part of the travel.
As for a full floater Commencal design, it's a negative. And if comparing the Commencal to anything, it's actually similar to Felt's Equilink system. Much more so than the Yeti, but it's still similar.
Given the Pinkbike field test and the comments they had there and the overall comments about chains and idlers wearing out and idler bikes being more noisy, I don't think we'll see a lot of them outside 170+ mm travel bikes, so hard core enduro racers and DH bikes. So bikes that aren't pedaled around on full day epics, but if they are, their owners are a bit insane for doing it and know what they're getting into.
This might also go hand in hand with the comments above about DH bikes getting more popular. These kinds of bikes have gotten so race oriented, that for everyday use they are too much. Which is where trailbikes come in and we don't see a lot (except the Druid, any basically) high pivots in this category.
Can we also just acknowledge how good we have it these days when it comes to bikes and their capabilities?
Force's cables exit from TT, link has open windows, main pivot has a pinch bolt.
Easy to see what the link does, very similar in concept to what their pedal only bikes do.
Its bike and ebike.
We don’t need anything more. Not “acoustic”. Not “analog” (or analogue). Not “pedal only”.
Inventing new ways of saying bike just makes us all look like cretins.
Surely you don’t think that anyone is that stupid that they don’t understand the difference.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation