Now I'm just not sure. The guides look pretty similar.
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/01/25/11928/s1200_Screenshot_20220125_214411.jpg[/img][img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/01/25/11926/s1200_Screenshot_20220125_214145.jpg[/img]
Now I'm just not sure. The guides look pretty similar.
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/01/26/11930/s1200_s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_01_25_at_10.14.43_AM.jpg[/img]
[img]https://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20383676/p5pb20383676.jpg[/img]
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
Theres a pivot at the chainstay in front of the axle on the intense, brake mount is way different (same length arms on the sesh, rear arm longer on the intense), main pivot bolt is more recessed on the intense.
Don’t think Gwin is riding a session. Maybe he asked Steber to build him a session copy, but it doesn’t look like the same bike.
Yeah, the black circle on the chain stay ~1.5" in front of the axle looked like a pivot, but I'm not sure now. Super zoomed in it looks less circular, and everything else looks identical. It's also possible that they took a trek frame or parts of it and hacked it up to fab their own prototype. The metallurgy of that is iffy tho. Anyone know if a heat treated Al frame can be annealed, welded up, then re heat treated? Edit: I doubt intense would have been able to get trek frame parts before they'd been heat treated, but I suppose it's possible...?
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/01/26/11930/s1200_s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_01_25_at_10.14.43_AM.jpg[/img]
[img]https://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20383676/p5pb20383676.jpg[/img]
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
it's not impossible for them to have fab'd up a one off front end and slapped on a trek back end for testing purposes. no evidence to support that, just speculation.
it's not impossible for them to have fab'd up a one off front end and slapped on a trek back end for testing purposes. no evidence...
it's not impossible for them to have fab'd up a one off front end and slapped on a trek back end for testing purposes. no evidence to support that, just speculation.
Seems unlikely that they'd cover up the intense made front triangle but show the trek rear end. I mean I know hiding a rear triangle isn't a real option, but still. And, yeah that's just speculation on my part too. And while I'm speculating wildly I wonder if trek would have given some frame parts/tubesets to Gwin or even intense for them to prototype with. On the one hand trek wouldn't want to help intense develop a bike that competes for sales. On the other hand if Gwin races a "prototype" that is or at least close to and clearly derived from a session... well that makes the trek look very, very good. Like racers who are sponsored by a different tire company running blacked out maxxis tires is a better testament to maxxis tires than maxxis sponsored racers running a maxxis. I can't imagine Intense would allow Gwin to race a session look alike, but we don't know the details of their contract.
Edit: Trek has abp patented, right? Have they ever licensed it to another company?
Yeah, the black circle on the chain stay ~1.5" in front of the axle looked like a pivot, but I'm not sure now. Super zoomed in...
Yeah, the black circle on the chain stay ~1.5" in front of the axle looked like a pivot, but I'm not sure now. Super zoomed in it looks less circular, and everything else looks identical. It's also possible that they took a trek frame or parts of it and hacked it up to fab their own prototype. The metallurgy of that is iffy tho. Anyone know if a heat treated Al frame can be annealed, welded up, then re heat treated? Edit: I doubt intense would have been able to get trek frame parts before they'd been heat treated, but I suppose it's possible...?
How do you think frames are made? You buy heat treated tubes and stock to make billet (forged) parts. You weld them up and the welded zone, due to the thermal stress, goes into the base, unaged state. You then heat treat it again, to age the welds themselves.
The problem with 'rewelding' is having an appropriate surface to do it. It's hard to fix a frame because:
a) it cracked on a weld, so there's an issue with the weld and rewelding it might not solve it, but you likely won't be treating it again, so the weld will be weak or weaker than the surrounding structure.
b) it cracked on a weld, but there's a design issue, so, besides the rewelded area being weaker, it doesn't have a chance to hold up to abuse
c) (the one I was aiming at before doing these ABCs) the frame cracked somewhere away from a weld, in the middle of a tube. Tubes are mostly butted, which means thinner in the middle, thicker at the ends. This is because a thicker tube is easier to weld and gives a better joint to the other part. Welding the middle part is not as easy as it's easy to blow through. Even if it is just a crack, adding a weld over it will likely make the weld a stress riser, so a failed design (most likely) will just be accentuated by the welded area.
So yeah, cutting up a frame and rewelding it, in theory, with the original parts prepared correctly and the design permitting, could be possible. And should work with heat treating.
EDIT: as for Gwin running a Trek in the races... If they wanted to run a 'Trek', it's easy to buy a frame, take it apart and have it scanned to get all the dimensions, then make your own frame. I think Intense should have the billets, tools, tubes and the knowhow to whip up a prototype that should hold up to abuse if given the general dimensions of a frame.
There should be hundreds of companies in California that have either a 3D coordinate measuring machine or just something like a Faro arm to collect the pivot distances. If you look at the 'Let's run the numbers' series on Pinkbike, they used 3D scanning, which is basically overkill, but is the easiest, as you don't need to disassemble anything.
It's good to see Gwin finally on (hopefully) the correct bike for him to be competitive. But man, Intense is such a mess and delays are ridiculous. As I've said before, he's been asking for this new bike for over a year. And here he is, testing it in January a couple months before the season kicks off. And his teammate is still riding the old bike--meaning the 'prototype' is not even ready for Dakota to have a version of. And if it truly is still a Session and then Intense has to copy it it still, they might not even be on near final bikes until the season kicks off. Another offseason missed for these guys to get comfy on their race bike. So they'll likely be fighting it in the early part of the season again. I'm sure Gwin is so pissed this is how the Intense years have gone. If he had been able to stay on YT and Onza for another couple years. He'd likely have a handful more world cup wins--even with his injuries.
How do you think frames are made? You buy heat treated tubes and stock to make billet (forged) parts. You weld them up and the welded...
How do you think frames are made? You buy heat treated tubes and stock to make billet (forged) parts. You weld them up and the welded zone, due to the thermal stress, goes into the base, unaged state. You then heat treat it again, to age the welds themselves.
The problem with 'rewelding' is having an appropriate surface to do it. It's hard to fix a frame because:
a) it cracked on a weld, so there's an issue with the weld and rewelding it might not solve it, but you likely won't be treating it again, so the weld will be weak or weaker than the surrounding structure.
b) it cracked on a weld, but there's a design issue, so, besides the rewelded area being weaker, it doesn't have a chance to hold up to abuse
c) (the one I was aiming at before doing these ABCs) the frame cracked somewhere away from a weld, in the middle of a tube. Tubes are mostly butted, which means thinner in the middle, thicker at the ends. This is because a thicker tube is easier to weld and gives a better joint to the other part. Welding the middle part is not as easy as it's easy to blow through. Even if it is just a crack, adding a weld over it will likely make the weld a stress riser, so a failed design (most likely) will just be accentuated by the welded area.
So yeah, cutting up a frame and rewelding it, in theory, with the original parts prepared correctly and the design permitting, could be possible. And should work with heat treating.
EDIT: as for Gwin running a Trek in the races... If they wanted to run a 'Trek', it's easy to buy a frame, take it apart and have it scanned to get all the dimensions, then make your own frame. I think Intense should have the billets, tools, tubes and the knowhow to whip up a prototype that should hold up to abuse if given the general dimensions of a frame.
There should be hundreds of companies in California that have either a 3D coordinate measuring machine or just something like a Faro arm to collect the pivot distances. If you look at the 'Let's run the numbers' series on Pinkbike, they used 3D scanning, which is basically overkill, but is the easiest, as you don't need to disassemble anything.
Yeah a cmm would be all that's needed to replicate the kinematics. But it'd be an abp, so intense would have to license it from trek if they wanted to sell. If trek would even license it for a reasonable amount of money. This is why I think that it's either a session and for testing only. Or they chopped a trek into a horst as a quick and dirty way of testing a horst high pivot without fabbing a whole prototype from scratch. I mean, Intense's most iconic dh bike the M1 was a horst, before specialized patented it. It would make way more sense for intense to make a horst again than an abp. Of course the blanket thing could be covering something more interesting: a six bar like the commencal or specialized. But, given that intense doesn't seem able to make a vpp (which they have years of experience with) to Gwins liking, then the simpler horst seems more likely than a 6 bar.
If they wanted to sell. If they wanted to actually race the Session, but not actually race the Session, a self made proto is by far the easiest way. And for that you don't need licencing. And it's not about which system is used, it's about using something that is proven and racing with it, to see how it actually handles under competitive pressure.
It's likely just a testing thing and thus a proper Session (if the spying of shots is correct). I'm just saying what the options could be.
If they have problems with a dual short link and making it handle right, I doubt it makes sense for them to jump over to a 6-bar, the amount of variables is greatly increased there.
BTW, the M1 was, at one point, a single pivot as well
If intense just wanted well sorted kinematics and geo from a bike known to be competitive then they'd just cmm (or similar) a santa cruz v10 and copy that. It's what intense had been doing for years. It'd make marketing easier too by staying vpp.
Regardless of if it's a session or a prototype based on a hacked up session, it seems a bit late to be testing a competitors bike or an early stage prototype. Lourdes is in 2 months. If I recall correctly these photos are only a week old. It'll be very interesting to see what he races! The not sure he'll be there but the first dhse here in the states is in a month, and Tennessee National in ~6 weeks.
Another chapter in the somewhat strange Ellsworth saga...:
San Diego, CA – January 24, 2022 – Ellsworth Cycling, LLC (dba “Ellsworth Bikes”) a premium manufacturer of legendary mountain bikes for over 30 years, announced today that it has successfully completed a partnership agreement with Tony Ellsworth, bringing the Founder back as equal partner in the new company.
The agreement, signed by Ellsworth CEO, Rudi Pienaar and Tony Ellsworth, is another step forward in building a bright and sustainable future for Ellsworth Bikes. The agreement appoints Tony as Chief Designer Officer of Ellsworth and is intended to capitalize on Tony’s impressive track-record of innovation and design with the company, including many which have been internationally patented and licensed to other brands over the years. The Ellsworth brand will continue to focus on the design and manufacture of top-tier mountain bikes, with an added focus on bringing selected manufacturing back to the USA for future models.
“I am delighted to announce the agreement and to have Tony on board,” says Pienaar. “Ellsworth’s history of innovation is important to us, and having the founder of the company back in the design seat just feels right. Tony and I share a love of cycling, design and the Ellsworth brand. Most importantly, we agree on the manner in which Ellsworth should be run and operated for a sustainable business partnership, something which is key to the success of the company.”
Ellsworth – who is also currently employing his legendary talents to his new e-mobility brand The Ride Bikes – is thrilled to be back with his legacy brand, and he shares Pienaar’s sense of symbiosis with all involved. “I have had a heart full of consternation for what happened to the brand over the last seven years of failed merger and acquisition activities,” Ellsworth says. “I’ve spent unquantifiable brain cycles on where I’d channel my love for MTB’s, which is what drives my design energies."
Seems unlikely that they'd cover up the intense made front triangle but show the trek rear end. I mean I know hiding a rear triangle isn't...
Seems unlikely that they'd cover up the intense made front triangle but show the trek rear end. I mean I know hiding a rear triangle isn't a real option, but still. And, yeah that's just speculation on my part too. And while I'm speculating wildly I wonder if trek would have given some frame parts/tubesets to Gwin or even intense for them to prototype with. On the one hand trek wouldn't want to help intense develop a bike that competes for sales. On the other hand if Gwin races a "prototype" that is or at least close to and clearly derived from a session... well that makes the trek look very, very good. Like racers who are sponsored by a different tire company running blacked out maxxis tires is a better testament to maxxis tires than maxxis sponsored racers running a maxxis. I can't imagine Intense would allow Gwin to race a session look alike, but we don't know the details of their contract.
Edit: Trek has abp patented, right? Have they ever licensed it to another company?
I think the the abp pivot is actually owned by Dave Weagle as well if I remember correctly? Both Devinci and Orbea have licensed it and use it on their bikes.
I think the the abp pivot is actually owned by Dave Weagle as well if I remember correctly? Both Devinci and Orbea have licensed it and...
I think the the abp pivot is actually owned by Dave Weagle as well if I remember correctly? Both Devinci and Orbea have licensed it and use it on their bikes.
ABP is actually a direct ripoff of Split Pivot. DW did initially show this to Trek, and they did not want to collaborate. Then Trek "developed" ABP. I think there was a lawsuit that ended with ABP is not infringing on DW's IP or something.
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went the way of the dodo.
Devinci is officially a split pivot, Morewood bikes were too (until they stopped existing basically, while Orbea doesn't seem to be licensing the patent, there are no mentions of the Split Pivot if I'm not mistaken? Is the SP patent worldwide or US only?
As for Intense and VPP, I seem to remember the intentionally moved away from the VPP patent to be able to stop paying for the royalties and went with the Cero designed (optimised) JS Link?
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went...
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went the way of the dodo.
Devinci is officially a split pivot, Morewood bikes were too (until they stopped existing basically, while Orbea doesn't seem to be licensing the patent, there are no mentions of the Split Pivot if I'm not mistaken? Is the SP patent worldwide or US only?
As for Intense and VPP, I seem to remember the intentionally moved away from the VPP patent to be able to stop paying for the royalties and went with the Cero designed (optimised) JS Link?
On a side note: Morewood bikes is basically Pyga now. Designed and owned by Patrick Morewood.
Another chapter in the somewhat strange Ellsworth saga...:
[b]San Diego, CA – January 24, 2022[/b] – Ellsworth Cycling, LLC (dba “Ellsworth Bikes”) a premium manufacturer of...
Another chapter in the somewhat strange Ellsworth saga...:
San Diego, CA – January 24, 2022 – Ellsworth Cycling, LLC (dba “Ellsworth Bikes”) a premium manufacturer of legendary mountain bikes for over 30 years, announced today that it has successfully completed a partnership agreement with Tony Ellsworth, bringing the Founder back as equal partner in the new company.
The agreement, signed by Ellsworth CEO, Rudi Pienaar and Tony Ellsworth, is another step forward in building a bright and sustainable future for Ellsworth Bikes. The agreement appoints Tony as Chief Designer Officer of Ellsworth and is intended to capitalize on Tony’s impressive track-record of innovation and design with the company, including many which have been internationally patented and licensed to other brands over the years. The Ellsworth brand will continue to focus on the design and manufacture of top-tier mountain bikes, with an added focus on bringing selected manufacturing back to the USA for future models.
“I am delighted to announce the agreement and to have Tony on board,” says Pienaar. “Ellsworth’s history of innovation is important to us, and having the founder of the company back in the design seat just feels right. Tony and I share a love of cycling, design and the Ellsworth brand. Most importantly, we agree on the manner in which Ellsworth should be run and operated for a sustainable business partnership, something which is key to the success of the company.”
Ellsworth – who is also currently employing his legendary talents to his new e-mobility brand The Ride Bikes – is thrilled to be back with his legacy brand, and he shares Pienaar’s sense of symbiosis with all involved. “I have had a heart full of consternation for what happened to the brand over the last seven years of failed merger and acquisition activities,” Ellsworth says. “I’ve spent unquantifiable brain cycles on where I’d channel my love for MTB’s, which is what drives my design energies."
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went...
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went the way of the dodo.
Devinci is officially a split pivot, Morewood bikes were too (until they stopped existing basically, while Orbea doesn't seem to be licensing the patent, there are no mentions of the Split Pivot if I'm not mistaken? Is the SP patent worldwide or US only?
As for Intense and VPP, I seem to remember the intentionally moved away from the VPP patent to be able to stop paying for the royalties and went with the Cero designed (optimised) JS Link?
Nope, Patrick left Morewood, the company, and setup Pyga while Morewood was still running as a company (which was a bit ironic given the names). Pyga started off with single pivots and a few years back moved to horst links. Morewood used to be single pivot only and then moved to split pivot designs on the trailbikes.
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
[img]https://p.vitalmtb.com/photos/forums/2022/01/26/11930/s1200_s1200_Screen_Shot_2022_01_25_at_10.14.43_AM.jpg[/img]
[img]https://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb20383676/p5pb20383676.jpg[/img]
I'm now 100% sure it's a session. Check out the other photo of the cut out in the chainstay on the non-drive side
Sorry this is a bit behind but it looks to me like the swingarm is identical - you can see the hollowed out part just in front of his ankle, but they're using a different middle/brake link to make it a high Horst link (making the ABP pivot the Horst pivot). I'd guess they're experimenting with different chainstay lengths, or there's a new linkage under that fabric.
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went...
Yeah, ABP I think was saved by the full floater element (shock mounted to the chainstay and seatstay) and the timing, but the full floater went the way of the dodo.
Devinci is officially a split pivot, Morewood bikes were too (until they stopped existing basically, while Orbea doesn't seem to be licensing the patent, there are no mentions of the Split Pivot if I'm not mistaken? Is the SP patent worldwide or US only?
As for Intense and VPP, I seem to remember the intentionally moved away from the VPP patent to be able to stop paying for the royalties and went with the Cero designed (optimised) JS Link?
As I recall, the dates on the patent applications for APB and Split Pivot were so close, the court decided both were developed at the same time and both DW and Trek hold patents on the design..
Seems odd he would post a picture of him riding another brands bike. If someone randomly took that pic and posted it that would make more sense of him on another brand bike but why post it yourself?
Seems odd he would post a picture of him riding another brands bike. If someone randomly took that pic and posted it that would make more...
Seems odd he would post a picture of him riding another brands bike. If someone randomly took that pic and posted it that would make more sense of him on another brand bike but why post it yourself?
Because you know there's some Tony Ellsworth news coming that will make it seem completely normal and sane
It's good to see Gwin finally on (hopefully) the correct bike for him to be competitive. But man, Intense is such a mess and delays are...
It's good to see Gwin finally on (hopefully) the correct bike for him to be competitive. But man, Intense is such a mess and delays are ridiculous. As I've said before, he's been asking for this new bike for over a year. And here he is, testing it in January a couple months before the season kicks off. And his teammate is still riding the old bike--meaning the 'prototype' is not even ready for Dakota to have a version of. And if it truly is still a Session and then Intense has to copy it it still, they might not even be on near final bikes until the season kicks off. Another offseason missed for these guys to get comfy on their race bike. So they'll likely be fighting it in the early part of the season again. I'm sure Gwin is so pissed this is how the Intense years have gone. If he had been able to stay on YT and Onza for another couple years. He'd likely have a handful more world cup wins--even with his injuries.
Who says that the M29 does not work? Or the M279 proto?
As far as I understand correctly, the tires are the big bad. The M29 and also the M279 Proto have already proven their competitiveness.
I do not understand why it is claimed here everywhere that the frames are the problem...from where?
That Gwin probably does not get along properly with full 29er could not be known before he switched to the team. I would just say that the M29 piloted by Pierron would be on the top of the podium.
Well Dean, Charlie and Jack developed the full carbon M29 to a production level (it's currently being sold as the DH bike), then after Gwin arrived, they started playing around with the MX ALU frames. And they've been on those now what, 2 years? Then you have the Neko interviews, where he says they lost direction and were (are) testing competitor bikes.
That is a pretty sure indication that the current proto isn't working well. Even in testing, where it's easy to run different rubber. As for the carbon one, looks like it didn't work for someone int he team for them to go forward with the ALU protos...
Well Dean, Charlie and Jack developed the full carbon M29 to a production level (it's currently being sold as the DH bike), then after Gwin arrived...
Well Dean, Charlie and Jack developed the full carbon M29 to a production level (it's currently being sold as the DH bike), then after Gwin arrived, they started playing around with the MX ALU frames. And they've been on those now what, 2 years? Then you have the Neko interviews, where he says they lost direction and were (are) testing competitor bikes.
That is a pretty sure indication that the current proto isn't working well. Even in testing, where it's easy to run different rubber. As for the carbon one, looks like it didn't work for someone int he team for them to go forward with the ALU protos...
I almost think they were making things too complex with the alu prototypes. Neko isn’t a short guy, so why would he want a bike to shorten upon compression? I’ve seen him rip his new frames at windrock and kanuga and he is noticeable smoother and faster than previous.
Allied Cycleworks, known for their high-quality, American-made road and gravel frames, teased the mold for a full suspension MTB frame on their Instagram today.
Makes sense, since Peyson Mcelveen just signed with them and needs an MTB to ride.
Don’t think Gwin is riding a session. Maybe he asked Steber to build him a session copy, but it doesn’t look like the same bike.
Edit: Trek has abp patented, right? Have they ever licensed it to another company?
The problem with 'rewelding' is having an appropriate surface to do it. It's hard to fix a frame because:
a) it cracked on a weld, so there's an issue with the weld and rewelding it might not solve it, but you likely won't be treating it again, so the weld will be weak or weaker than the surrounding structure.
b) it cracked on a weld, but there's a design issue, so, besides the rewelded area being weaker, it doesn't have a chance to hold up to abuse
c) (the one I was aiming at before doing these ABCs) the frame cracked somewhere away from a weld, in the middle of a tube. Tubes are mostly butted, which means thinner in the middle, thicker at the ends. This is because a thicker tube is easier to weld and gives a better joint to the other part. Welding the middle part is not as easy as it's easy to blow through. Even if it is just a crack, adding a weld over it will likely make the weld a stress riser, so a failed design (most likely) will just be accentuated by the welded area.
So yeah, cutting up a frame and rewelding it, in theory, with the original parts prepared correctly and the design permitting, could be possible. And should work with heat treating.
EDIT: as for Gwin running a Trek in the races... If they wanted to run a 'Trek', it's easy to buy a frame, take it apart and have it scanned to get all the dimensions, then make your own frame. I think Intense should have the billets, tools, tubes and the knowhow to whip up a prototype that should hold up to abuse if given the general dimensions of a frame.
There should be hundreds of companies in California that have either a 3D coordinate measuring machine or just something like a Faro arm to collect the pivot distances. If you look at the 'Let's run the numbers' series on Pinkbike, they used 3D scanning, which is basically overkill, but is the easiest, as you don't need to disassemble anything.
It's likely just a testing thing and thus a proper Session (if the spying of shots is correct). I'm just saying what the options could be.
If they have problems with a dual short link and making it handle right, I doubt it makes sense for them to jump over to a 6-bar, the amount of variables is greatly increased there.
BTW, the M1 was, at one point, a single pivot as well
Regardless of if it's a session or a prototype based on a hacked up session, it seems a bit late to be testing a competitors bike or an early stage prototype. Lourdes is in 2 months. If I recall correctly these photos are only a week old. It'll be very interesting to see what he races! The not sure he'll be there but the first dhse here in the states is in a month, and Tennessee National in ~6 weeks.
San Diego, CA – January 24, 2022 – Ellsworth Cycling, LLC (dba “Ellsworth Bikes”) a premium manufacturer of legendary mountain bikes for over 30 years, announced today that it has successfully completed a partnership agreement with Tony Ellsworth, bringing the Founder back as equal partner in the new company.
The agreement, signed by Ellsworth CEO, Rudi Pienaar and Tony Ellsworth, is another step forward in building a bright and sustainable future for Ellsworth Bikes. The agreement appoints Tony as Chief Designer Officer of Ellsworth and is intended to capitalize on Tony’s impressive track-record of innovation and design with the company, including many which have been internationally patented and licensed to other brands over the years. The Ellsworth brand will continue to focus on the design and manufacture of top-tier mountain bikes, with an added focus on bringing selected manufacturing back to the USA for future models.
“I am delighted to announce the agreement and to have Tony on board,” says Pienaar. “Ellsworth’s history of innovation is important to us, and having the founder of the company back in the design seat just feels right. Tony and I share a love of cycling, design and the Ellsworth brand. Most importantly, we agree on the manner in which Ellsworth should be run and operated for a sustainable business partnership, something which is key to the success of the company.”
Ellsworth – who is also currently employing his legendary talents to his new e-mobility brand The Ride Bikes – is thrilled to be back with his legacy brand, and he shares Pienaar’s sense of symbiosis with all involved. “I have had a heart full of consternation for what happened to the brand over the last seven years of failed merger and acquisition activities,” Ellsworth says. “I’ve spent unquantifiable brain cycles on where I’d channel my love for MTB’s, which is what drives my design energies."
Devinci is officially a split pivot, Morewood bikes were too (until they stopped existing basically, while Orbea doesn't seem to be licensing the patent, there are no mentions of the Split Pivot if I'm not mistaken? Is the SP patent worldwide or US only?
As for Intense and VPP, I seem to remember the intentionally moved away from the VPP patent to be able to stop paying for the royalties and went with the Cero designed (optimised) JS Link?
Pyga Mountain Bikes
https://theridebikes.com/products/radiant-carbon-electric-bike
As far as I understand correctly, the tires are the big bad. The M29 and also the M279 Proto have already proven their competitiveness.
I do not understand why it is claimed here everywhere that the frames are the problem...from where?
That Gwin probably does not get along properly with full 29er could not be known before he switched to the team. I would just say that the M29 piloted by Pierron would be on the top of the podium.
That is a pretty sure indication that the current proto isn't working well. Even in testing, where it's easy to run different rubber. As for the carbon one, looks like it didn't work for someone int he team for them to go forward with the ALU protos...
Makes sense, since Peyson Mcelveen just signed with them and needs an MTB to ride.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZPA0OJuHMj/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation