What brand of bikes & models is this happening to? Does Evil Bikes have this problem they run a Trunion mount on most of there product...
What brand of bikes & models is this happening to? Does Evil Bikes have this problem they run a Trunion mount on most of there product line I was a fan of Fox back in the 70’s but some of my(MX)riding buddies had problems with Fox Products and that was it for me I said never will I buy a Fox product & I’ve stuck to that there’s better Shox and forks out there. It’s on Fox to resolve this the World is watching stand behind your work & your product! Or if this is a Bike Brands design issue was the shock supplied as Original Equipment on a complete bike sale? Then it’s on both Companies & they both know it and there covering each other’s asses.
My v2 offering had a terrible misalignment problem. Evil didn’t believe me of course. I was an aircraft mechanic for 15 years. I know what it looks like when hardware doesn’t line up properly.
I think it was the linkage. But Evil wanted me to send them the frame and WAIT while they inspected it. No thanks. I had a similar issue on my v2 alloy sentinel. Getting the trunnion hardware to mount and thread easily was painfully annoying.
This is also an innovation thread. Discussing current tech problems seems perfectly normal, some brand might see the discussion and innovate their problematic work.
I think that happens with fox but at this time it is the only brand that does the reverse shock, what is really wrong is the trunion system. Fox currently when it works has one of the best if not the best air shock, if I had a trunion frame I would do what the colleague has said to compensate the deviation with the bushing.
The problem of what you are saying is the 'when' part. Honestly I haven't heard anyone saying they haven't had a problem with the X2 series of shocks, either the DHX2 or the Float X2.
Cool that it's the best shock WHEN it works. I prefer a lesser shock that _WORKS_. Having the theoretically best bike helps me diddly squat if it's parked in the garage, waiting for a service, spare part or anything similar. Even a shitty bike is better when being ridden on the trails compared to the best bike that's waiting to be serviced and not available to be ridden.
As for reverse air shocks, the EXT Aria is/will be the same, so is the Kitsuma and Ohlins TTX Air. Likely some other shocks too, but I don't remember off the top of my head. Though none of these is present on bikes as often as the Fox is.
I think that happens with fox but at this time it is the only brand that does the reverse shock, what is really wrong is the...
I think that happens with fox but at this time it is the only brand that does the reverse shock, what is really wrong is the trunion system. Fox currently when it works has one of the best if not the best air shock, if I had a trunion frame I would do what the colleague has said to compensate the deviation with the bushing.
Cane Creek and Ohlins say hi!
If a frame is misaligned it will cause big issues regardless of the style of shock.
I’m going to try this FixShock in a hope of prolonging more the health of my RS SD on my TR Sentinel,I know Push is already using them on the 11/6 but this you can install on the opposite mont of the trunnion making it easyer on the shock
Considering the comments (that the rocker is misaligned compared to the bottom mount) this won't do much on a trunnion shock. If you had it on both sides, then it would work as the shock could be slanted on both eyelets. The trunnion will just hold it fairly stiff regardless of what kind of a mount you have on the bottom.
I’m going to try this FixShock in a hope of prolonging more the health of my RS SD on my TR Sentinel,I know Push is already...
I’m going to try this FixShock in a hope of prolonging more the health of my RS SD on my TR Sentinel,I know Push is already using them on the 11/6 but this you can install on the opposite mont of the trunnion making it easyer on the shock
I really like this as a general idea, I'd only seen push and cascade (on their dhx2 mullet eyelets) doing this for mtb shocks, though I don't think it would have much effect on most trunnion loading problems as the flexing is mostly occurring at the trunnion side. honestly though I'd probably run one of these anyway, and for non trunnion shocks those are amazing, I might have to see if we can order some of these for our shop
My old Demo 8 has rose joints on the Ohlins shock, was great but the side forces would pop the rose joint out of the eyelet and ram the shock into the carbon, destroying the shock mount.
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what problems does it solve (or cause)?
My 1st thought is frames not being built strong enough in the shock mount & linkage area's frame twists during use did any of you tear down your bikes when it was still new? For all the complete bikes I've owned since I was 13 years old I tore them down to the frame cleaned and relube(on all my motorcycles as well)everything then started from there, It really sounds like a frame issue that's being covered by the suspension manufacturer mounting points coming out of alignment shouldn't be happening.
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS loads into the frame and it will soon crack or it's designed so weakly, it will soon crack.
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what...
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what problems does it solve (or cause)?
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following the guy behind it on Instagram for a while and he said the bike pedaled much better after he flipped the lower link 180 degrees (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj5r1gWMX27/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link). I could try and model at least the leverage rate in Linkage, but I have no clue how to analyze the URT-style designs w.r.t. pedaling behavior. However, at least by the looks of it, the lower link rotates downwards as the suspension compresses, so that might help alleviate the common 'standing lockout' issues of URT designs.
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what...
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what problems does it solve (or cause)?
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following...
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following the guy behind it on Instagram for a while and he said the bike pedaled much better after he flipped the lower link 180 degrees (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj5r1gWMX27/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link). I could try and model at least the leverage rate in Linkage, but I have no clue how to analyze the URT-style designs w.r.t. pedaling behavior. However, at least by the looks of it, the lower link rotates downwards as the suspension compresses, so that might help alleviate the common 'standing lockout' issues of URT designs.
I put at rough version of it in Linkage and that thing isn't that out there. The leverage ratio looks like a Santa => qickly falling, then Rising. Otherwise it gives really high Anti-rise (+200%) that is falling very quickly, with BB below the linkage the pedal kick is very low but I checked with BB above as sugested and it brings more more standard values of pedal kick. Axle path isn't that crazy it seems to have -5 to +10 of path over 120mm travel. Anti squat is the unknow that seems to make Linkage bug a big, like AR it starts very high (above 200%) but falls very quickly, but again, Linkage gives me an error message so no idea really. The one point that is interesting is the pedal kick that is very normal despite what seems to be a very high anti-squat.
*** keep in mind this is very rough guesswork to understand the basics of the suspension design and is not a proper representation of this bike.***
The iddler design was somehat more conventional than it looks, yes it has some very rearward axle path but I am not sure it is much more than say a Zerode G1 for instance which makes me question the point of using such a complicated layout when you could acheive similar results with a single pivot and linkage.
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following...
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following the guy behind it on Instagram for a while and he said the bike pedaled much better after he flipped the lower link 180 degrees (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj5r1gWMX27/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link). I could try and model at least the leverage rate in Linkage, but I have no clue how to analyze the URT-style designs w.r.t. pedaling behavior. However, at least by the looks of it, the lower link rotates downwards as the suspension compresses, so that might help alleviate the common 'standing lockout' issues of URT designs.
Re: frame misalignment and flex causing trunnion issues. I wonder if a sleaved rubber bushings for the lower shock eyelet would make sense. Automotive uses them except in some race cars. It'd need a much larger eyelet diameter on the shock of course. It wouldn't eliminate side loading from flex or misalignment but (if designed right) it could reduce side loading to more manageable levels. It'd have the advantages of a spherical eyelet mount but could also push left/right too. It'd also reduce vibrations like buttercup. There could still be a regular bushing for rotation if needed (unlike automotive). Swappable durometers could allow for vibration damping tuning too. The eyelet would have to be larger which might cause packaging issues and frames would probably have to be designed for it (everyone loves a new standard right?), but aside from that does anyone see any other downsides?
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS...
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS loads into the frame and it will soon crack or it's designed so weakly, it will soon crack.
Really, I would have thought there was a certain amount of flex inherent in any bicycle design. Full sus bikes being even more susceptible to it, with bearings and linkages. 1mm seems well within what I would have expected for frame flex with an average rider on rough terrain.
Currently have an X2 on a Knolly, no issues at all.
had a Sentinel, was amazed at how well it was aligned when installing Cascade link. Have a Spire, I’ll take it apart to see how it is, no signs of issues so far.
is it possible we are getting caught up in the details, and most frames are well within alignment specs? What do you think are acceptable tolerances?
It’s a debatable topic… I think we can all agree that a certain amount of flex in the system enhances traction in certain conditions.
The question is, where should that flex be, in the wheels, frame or in the shock? And the amount of flex required is probably different for each rider based on their size, terrain and riding style.
At the front, manufacturers will accept a certain amount of lateral flex in the fork as necessary, surely this is the same for the rear?
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they said its going to have 55 Nm now they are saying 45Nm. Battery size probably similar.
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS...
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS loads into the frame and it will soon crack or it's designed so weakly, it will soon crack.
Really, I would have thought there was a certain amount of flex inherent in any bicycle design. Full sus bikes being even more susceptible to it...
Really, I would have thought there was a certain amount of flex inherent in any bicycle design. Full sus bikes being even more susceptible to it, with bearings and linkages. 1mm seems well within what I would have expected for frame flex with an average rider on rough terrain.
Currently have an X2 on a Knolly, no issues at all.
had a Sentinel, was amazed at how well it was aligned when installing Cascade link. Have a Spire, I’ll take it apart to see how it is, no signs of issues so far.
is it possible we are getting caught up in the details, and most frames are well within alignment specs? What do you think are acceptable tolerances?
Deformation != flex in this case. BIIIIIIIIIG difference. We are talking about the frame being deformed (non-planar) just sitting there. So in the case of the frame being true when produced, we are talking about a plastic deformation. The frame deforming elastically (flexing) and moving by 1 mm, then moving back to true, is a whole different thing.
As for flex, it's a thing. EVERYTHING flexes, to some degree. We are talking about frames being deformed from the factory, putting unwanted stress on the shock all the time, and we're talking about excessive flex in the shock mounts, with trunnion shocks (which is a VERY stiff mount), killing shocks - in this case the shock design is less than optimal, Rock Shox's air shock layout gives a much sturdier shock in the trunnion variant, not damaging it as much when the frame does invariably flex.
As for the bushings (like in cars) and soft mounts, you need to know why you're doing it and how you're doing it. With cars they are there to a) reduce NVH (a solidly mounted car will be LOUD), b) make the ride more comfortable (shocks won't be transferred to the cabin to the same level) and c) to cover movement in more than one plane. Ideally with bikes you have movement in only one plane, so bushings aren't technically needed. Making the links flexible enough to not load the shocks sideways and rotationally would also be a solution. But if you go for flexy bushes, use them at both ends. A rosejoint bush is the same, just a lot more solid, but still frees up the eyelet in different directions. What Pole does is basically a universal joint and achieves the same end point, freeing up the shock side-to-side and allowing for a lot more misalignment without damaging the shock.
Are we getting caught up? Two Transition frames have been mentioned in this thread, which brings the total count that are badly out of plane on the shock mounts, that I know of, to three. In my opinion this should be zero in the field, the QC should catch that. As for the allowed tolerances, I think this is something that shock manufacturers should provide the frame manufacturers as they should test their products misaligned and see what is the point where the product still works to a satisfactory level. And the tolerance can not be zero as that is not a realistic requirement. I'm sure it's not in the range of millimeters though. Not without some serious rethink in how the shocks get mounted.
To be honest, with wheel sizes, hub standards, travel and geometries getting to a fairly stable point (I've been running the same bike for the 4th season now and I don't have a major geometry related reason to change it), improving robustness of the bikes might be the next differentiator. Sealing the bearings in the frame better, mounting the shock softly, etc.
Back to rumors.
New Levo SL already in the Netherlands HQ.
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they...
Back to rumors.
New Levo SL already in the Netherlands HQ.
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they said its going to have 55 Nm now they are saying 45Nm. Battery size probably similar.
How can it be that there are no pics of it?
If its the case than the big S will go from ebike market leader and innovator to just another brand.
Unless something special is happening there than 45nm and 320w+- battery just dont cut it these days in this category...
Back to rumors.
New Levo SL already in the Netherlands HQ.
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they...
Back to rumors.
New Levo SL already in the Netherlands HQ.
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they said its going to have 55 Nm now they are saying 45Nm. Battery size probably similar.
If its the case than the big S will go from ebike market leader and innovator to just another brand.
Unless something special is happening there...
If its the case than the big S will go from ebike market leader and innovator to just another brand.
Unless something special is happening there than 45nm and 320w+- battery just dont cut it these days in this category...
Agreed. I did a 3,500 ft ride this weekend with a buddy who was on a gen1 Levo SL while I was on a regular bike. He was on eco mode the whole time and didn't use the motor descending, and ended with <10% battery left after 3 hours. I was asking him what the point was - so he was a little bit less tired? I get the appeal of full power bikes letting you essentially self-shuttle. I've borrowed a Turbo Levo and did 5,000 ft in 1.5 hours (turbo mode the whole time), and had 16% charge left. But why would I want an ebike that doesn't let me do any more vertical than I'd normally ride (or much faster), just requires less effort?
IMO, the way to make the SL ebikes more appealing would be to find a way to increase the battery but leave the torque low. That makes them an option to let you go out and do really long rides that only require a similar amount of effort to a regular ride. Being able to go out and do a 6k day with the same amount of work as a 3k day on a normal bike would be appealing. Being able to do a 3.5k day in the same amount of work as a 1,750 ft ride is not. They should increase your range, not keep it the same.
I asked around- our quality guy and dealer service techs (guys rebuilding/repairing warranty suspension stuff all day every day) and they didn't seem to think Trunnion shocks were coming in more than standard shocks. Also looked at some warranty data- nothing is pointing to Trunnion shocks being definitively worse in terms of warranty or durability.
All things being equal a Trunnion mount is going to be harder on the shock vs a standard eyelet. I'm just not seeing a major difference between the two in terms of warranty issues.
Re SL, it enables someone who is either unsure in their capabilities or is weak for whatever reason (age, health, injury) to ride with a group of non-electric bikes. And it's a different experience going down compared to the powerful beasts, it behaves like a bike.
I have a riding buddy who went on the electric bandwagon specifically after seeing an SL version of the Turbo Levo and didn't want a full power e-bike because of the weight, now a year later he's alternating between the SL and a non-powered bike as he feels his fitness is good enough (it is).
Agreed. I did a 3,500 ft ride this weekend with a buddy who was on a gen1 Levo SL while I was on a regular bike. ...
Agreed. I did a 3,500 ft ride this weekend with a buddy who was on a gen1 Levo SL while I was on a regular bike. He was on eco mode the whole time and didn't use the motor descending, and ended with <10% battery left after 3 hours. I was asking him what the point was - so he was a little bit less tired? I get the appeal of full power bikes letting you essentially self-shuttle. I've borrowed a Turbo Levo and did 5,000 ft in 1.5 hours (turbo mode the whole time), and had 16% charge left. But why would I want an ebike that doesn't let me do any more vertical than I'd normally ride (or much faster), just requires less effort?
IMO, the way to make the SL ebikes more appealing would be to find a way to increase the battery but leave the torque low. That makes them an option to let you go out and do really long rides that only require a similar amount of effort to a regular ride. Being able to go out and do a 6k day with the same amount of work as a 3k day on a normal bike would be appealing. Being able to do a 3.5k day in the same amount of work as a 1,750 ft ride is not. They should increase your range, not keep it the same.
I have a kenevo sl, so a slightly different bike but with the same motor. With a range extender the other day I did a 26 mile ride with 5200 feet of vert, and got back to the car with roughly 50 percent battery left, The range extender adds 50%, so I basically killed the entire main battery of the bike. Mostly in trail/ eco, so I’m not sure how these other people are killing their bikes so fast unless they have the modes turned up to add max assistance.
this particular ride is mostly moto trails that I wouldn’t really ever ride on my regular bike, so really the little motor just opens up more options while still descending like a regular bike, also it open self shuttle options on the local jump trails that people usually car shuttle.
if spec really does only make the new one only 45nm they are kind of blowing it, going from creating the lightweight ebike class to being left in the dust by everyone making both bigger motors and batteries and still coming in pretty light. Unfortunately the only real competitor to the kenevo sl is the transition relay that doesn’t have much information available yet.
Looks like a high pivot Demo 8. Note the guy working on the. He hasn't attached the shock to the vertical link that drives the shock near the rear wheel. Gwin has a black link while the other proto's is silver.
The bike on the right has the shock near horizontal (you can just see the lower mountain point on the vertical link behind his leg), but you can tell there's a bolt or something forward and upward (from this POV, up and left) of the bottom bracket. Seems like a Sender/Demo-type linkage, with the axle path determined by a 4-bar (in this case, a slightly higher pivot with an idler, as you can tell by the chainline) and the upper link driving a shock linkage.
My v2 offering had a terrible misalignment problem. Evil didn’t believe me of course. I was an aircraft mechanic for 15 years. I know what it looks like when hardware doesn’t line up properly.
I think it was the linkage. But Evil wanted me to send them the frame and WAIT while they inspected it. No thanks. I had a similar issue on my v2 alloy sentinel. Getting the trunnion hardware to mount and thread easily was painfully annoying.
so are there any new rumors…?! or is this the new quality control thread?
This is also an innovation thread. Discussing current tech problems seems perfectly normal, some brand might see the discussion and innovate their problematic work.
I think that happens with fox but at this time it is the only brand that does the reverse shock, what is really wrong is the trunion system. Fox currently when it works has one of the best if not the best air shock, if I had a trunion frame I would do what the colleague has said to compensate the deviation with the bushing.
The problem of what you are saying is the 'when' part. Honestly I haven't heard anyone saying they haven't had a problem with the X2 series of shocks, either the DHX2 or the Float X2.
Cool that it's the best shock WHEN it works. I prefer a lesser shock that _WORKS_. Having the theoretically best bike helps me diddly squat if it's parked in the garage, waiting for a service, spare part or anything similar. Even a shitty bike is better when being ridden on the trails compared to the best bike that's waiting to be serviced and not available to be ridden.
As for reverse air shocks, the EXT Aria is/will be the same, so is the Kitsuma and Ohlins TTX Air. Likely some other shocks too, but I don't remember off the top of my head. Though none of these is present on bikes as often as the Fox is.
Cane Creek and Ohlins say hi!
If a frame is misaligned it will cause big issues regardless of the style of shock.
I’m going to try this FixShock in a hope of prolonging more the health of my RS SD on my TR Sentinel,I know Push is already using them on the 11/6 but this you can install on the opposite mont of the trunnion making it easyer on the shock
https://instagram.com/dhsign.it?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=https://instagram.com/dhsign.it?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Considering the comments (that the rocker is misaligned compared to the bottom mount) this won't do much on a trunnion shock. If you had it on both sides, then it would work as the shock could be slanted on both eyelets. The trunnion will just hold it fairly stiff regardless of what kind of a mount you have on the bottom.
(link to their site for anyone not logged into ig) https://dhsign.it/en/14-fixshox
I really like this as a general idea, I'd only seen push and cascade (on their dhx2 mullet eyelets) doing this for mtb shocks, though I don't think it would have much effect on most trunnion loading problems as the flexing is mostly occurring at the trunnion side. honestly though I'd probably run one of these anyway, and for non trunnion shocks those are amazing, I might have to see if we can order some of these for our shop
My old Demo 8 has rose joints on the Ohlins shock, was great but the side forces would pop the rose joint out of the eyelet and ram the shock into the carbon, destroying the shock mount.
I think EXT do sphericals bearings too.
"Auckland Cycle Works" has been working on dual-link design with the BB mounted on the lower link. Not quite a URT, is it unique and what problems does it solve (or cause)?
Photos towards the end of this article: https://bikerumor.com/auckland-cycle-works-marra-reiver-kolarp
My 1st thought is frames not being built strong enough in the shock mount & linkage area's frame twists during use did any of you tear down your bikes when it was still new? For all the complete bikes I've owned since I was 13 years old I tore them down to the frame cleaned and relube(on all my motorcycles as well)everything then started from there, It really sounds like a frame issue that's being covered by the suspension manufacturer mounting points coming out of alignment shouldn't be happening.
If the frame is deforming to such a degree that the shock mounts go out of alignment by a milimeter or so, you're either putting SERIOUS loads into the frame and it will soon crack or it's designed so weakly, it will soon crack.
It's probably been done before, but putting the BB on one of the links of a 4-bar design seems pretty novel to me. I've been following the guy behind it on Instagram for a while and he said the bike pedaled much better after he flipped the lower link 180 degrees (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj5r1gWMX27/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link). I could try and model at least the leverage rate in Linkage, but I have no clue how to analyze the URT-style designs w.r.t. pedaling behavior. However, at least by the looks of it, the lower link rotates downwards as the suspension compresses, so that might help alleviate the common 'standing lockout' issues of URT designs.
I put at rough version of it in Linkage and that thing isn't that out there. The leverage ratio looks like a Santa => qickly falling, then Rising. Otherwise it gives really high Anti-rise (+200%) that is falling very quickly, with BB below the linkage the pedal kick is very low but I checked with BB above as sugested and it brings more more standard values of pedal kick. Axle path isn't that crazy it seems to have -5 to +10 of path over 120mm travel. Anti squat is the unknow that seems to make Linkage bug a big, like AR it starts very high (above 200%) but falls very quickly, but again, Linkage gives me an error message so no idea really. The one point that is interesting is the pedal kick that is very normal despite what seems to be a very high anti-squat.
*** keep in mind this is very rough guesswork to understand the basics of the suspension design and is not a proper representation of this bike.***
The iddler design was somehat more conventional than it looks, yes it has some very rearward axle path but I am not sure it is much more than say a Zerode G1 for instance which makes me question the point of using such a complicated layout when you could acheive similar results with a single pivot and linkage.
Maverick monolink did excactly this.
https://www.leelikesbikes.com/maverick-ml-8.html
Really, I would have thought there was a certain amount of flex inherent in any bicycle design. Full sus bikes being even more susceptible to it, with bearings and linkages. 1mm seems well within what I would have expected for frame flex with an average rider on rough terrain.
Currently have an X2 on a Knolly, no issues at all.
had a Sentinel, was amazed at how well it was aligned when installing Cascade link. Have a Spire, I’ll take it apart to see how it is, no signs of issues so far.
is it possible we are getting caught up in the details, and most frames are well within alignment specs? What do you think are acceptable tolerances?
It’s a debatable topic… I think we can all agree that a certain amount of flex in the system enhances traction in certain conditions.
The question is, where should that flex be, in the wheels, frame or in the shock? And the amount of flex required is probably different for each rider based on their size, terrain and riding style.
At the front, manufacturers will accept a certain amount of lateral flex in the fork as necessary, surely this is the same for the rear?
Back to rumors.
New Levo SL already in the Netherlands HQ.
The front triangle is supposed to be similar to the Enduro front triangle. Previously they said its going to have 55 Nm now they are saying 45Nm. Battery size probably similar.
How can it be that there are no pics of it?
Deformation != flex in this case. BIIIIIIIIIG difference. We are talking about the frame being deformed (non-planar) just sitting there. So in the case of the frame being true when produced, we are talking about a plastic deformation. The frame deforming elastically (flexing) and moving by 1 mm, then moving back to true, is a whole different thing.
As for flex, it's a thing. EVERYTHING flexes, to some degree. We are talking about frames being deformed from the factory, putting unwanted stress on the shock all the time, and we're talking about excessive flex in the shock mounts, with trunnion shocks (which is a VERY stiff mount), killing shocks - in this case the shock design is less than optimal, Rock Shox's air shock layout gives a much sturdier shock in the trunnion variant, not damaging it as much when the frame does invariably flex.
As for the bushings (like in cars) and soft mounts, you need to know why you're doing it and how you're doing it. With cars they are there to a) reduce NVH (a solidly mounted car will be LOUD), b) make the ride more comfortable (shocks won't be transferred to the cabin to the same level) and c) to cover movement in more than one plane. Ideally with bikes you have movement in only one plane, so bushings aren't technically needed. Making the links flexible enough to not load the shocks sideways and rotationally would also be a solution. But if you go for flexy bushes, use them at both ends. A rosejoint bush is the same, just a lot more solid, but still frees up the eyelet in different directions. What Pole does is basically a universal joint and achieves the same end point, freeing up the shock side-to-side and allowing for a lot more misalignment without damaging the shock.
Are we getting caught up? Two Transition frames have been mentioned in this thread, which brings the total count that are badly out of plane on the shock mounts, that I know of, to three. In my opinion this should be zero in the field, the QC should catch that. As for the allowed tolerances, I think this is something that shock manufacturers should provide the frame manufacturers as they should test their products misaligned and see what is the point where the product still works to a satisfactory level. And the tolerance can not be zero as that is not a realistic requirement. I'm sure it's not in the range of millimeters though. Not without some serious rethink in how the shocks get mounted.
To be honest, with wheel sizes, hub standards, travel and geometries getting to a fairly stable point (I've been running the same bike for the 4th season now and I don't have a major geometry related reason to change it), improving robustness of the bikes might be the next differentiator. Sealing the bearings in the frame better, mounting the shock softly, etc.
If its the case than the big S will go from ebike market leader and innovator to just another brand.
Unless something special is happening there than 45nm and 320w+- battery just dont cut it these days in this category...
Agreed. I did a 3,500 ft ride this weekend with a buddy who was on a gen1 Levo SL while I was on a regular bike. He was on eco mode the whole time and didn't use the motor descending, and ended with <10% battery left after 3 hours. I was asking him what the point was - so he was a little bit less tired? I get the appeal of full power bikes letting you essentially self-shuttle. I've borrowed a Turbo Levo and did 5,000 ft in 1.5 hours (turbo mode the whole time), and had 16% charge left. But why would I want an ebike that doesn't let me do any more vertical than I'd normally ride (or much faster), just requires less effort?
IMO, the way to make the SL ebikes more appealing would be to find a way to increase the battery but leave the torque low. That makes them an option to let you go out and do really long rides that only require a similar amount of effort to a regular ride. Being able to go out and do a 6k day with the same amount of work as a 3k day on a normal bike would be appealing. Being able to do a 3.5k day in the same amount of work as a 1,750 ft ride is not. They should increase your range, not keep it the same.
I asked around- our quality guy and dealer service techs (guys rebuilding/repairing warranty suspension stuff all day every day) and they didn't seem to think Trunnion shocks were coming in more than standard shocks. Also looked at some warranty data- nothing is pointing to Trunnion shocks being definitively worse in terms of warranty or durability.
All things being equal a Trunnion mount is going to be harder on the shock vs a standard eyelet. I'm just not seeing a major difference between the two in terms of warranty issues.
Re SL, it enables someone who is either unsure in their capabilities or is weak for whatever reason (age, health, injury) to ride with a group of non-electric bikes. And it's a different experience going down compared to the powerful beasts, it behaves like a bike.
I have a riding buddy who went on the electric bandwagon specifically after seeing an SL version of the Turbo Levo and didn't want a full power e-bike because of the weight, now a year later he's alternating between the SL and a non-powered bike as he feels his fitness is good enough (it is).
New Intense proto:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CkHBm5iOKSr/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
I have a kenevo sl, so a slightly different bike but with the same motor. With a range extender the other day I did a 26 mile ride with 5200 feet of vert, and got back to the car with roughly 50 percent battery left, The range extender adds 50%, so I basically killed the entire main battery of the bike. Mostly in trail/ eco, so I’m not sure how these other people are killing their bikes so fast unless they have the modes turned up to add max assistance.
this particular ride is mostly moto trails that I wouldn’t really ever ride on my regular bike, so really the little motor just opens up more options while still descending like a regular bike, also it open self shuttle options on the local jump trails that people usually car shuttle.
if spec really does only make the new one only 45nm they are kind of blowing it, going from creating the lightweight ebike class to being left in the dust by everyone making both bigger motors and batteries and still coming in pretty light. Unfortunately the only real competitor to the kenevo sl is the transition relay that doesn’t have much information available yet.
Still looks like horst link, doesn't it? (There was talking of 6 bar stuff...) They got rid of the aluminum canoe built into the downtube though
Looks like a high pivot Demo 8. Note the guy working on the. He hasn't attached the shock to the vertical link that drives the shock near the rear wheel. Gwin has a black link while the other proto's is silver.
The bike on the right has the shock near horizontal (you can just see the lower mountain point on the vertical link behind his leg), but you can tell there's a bolt or something forward and upward (from this POV, up and left) of the bottom bracket. Seems like a Sender/Demo-type linkage, with the axle path determined by a 4-bar (in this case, a slightly higher pivot with an idler, as you can tell by the chainline) and the upper link driving a shock linkage.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation