Possibly a proprietary stem and bar with that inline headset? Will turn off a lot of people but potentially kind of cool.
This got me thinking. Internal cable routing was a disaster in its first iteration. To play with magnets and fiddle the cable through the frame…sounded like a rattlesnake.
now they sorted everything and it is straightforward (wireless is still from this perspective the easiest solution).
Internal cable-routing looks neat and needed time.
Rulezman will show us the BEST BIKE EVER later tonight. It will probably be very large, have a double crown, coil shock, light wheels, skinny tires...
Rulezman will show us the BEST BIKE EVER later tonight. It will probably be very large, have a double crown, coil shock, light wheels, skinny tires, no inserts, short stem and be THE BEST BIKE OR NOTHING. Currently Banshee is the best bike, so it may be downgraded to shit after the new launch
For all you Twinloc haters out there, the new Genius ST model disconnects the fork from the dual lockout so it's rear-only (and it's available with a reservoir shock).
So I can't figure out the brake cable routing for the new Scott.
They seem to cross over in the grommet that connects between the front and rear triangle...?
I can't imagine how they don't pull when the shock compresses. I know that all cables must move, but these seem to just pull tight around the shock. Is that the case? The cable routing is already suspect, but that grommet and crossover has me concerned.
It also makes it damn difficult to size cables, routing them under the bottom pivot like that. As if the cables weren't already a difficulty
here's all the new scott genius tech in a video below and our PR here - https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/new-2023-scott-genius-headset-routed-cables-and-integrated-suspension-design
here's all the new scott genius tech in a video below and our PR here - https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/new-2023-scott-genius-headset-routed-cables-and-integrated-suspension-design
The dissector seems to just be an anomaly of when Scott is using their renderings for the bike. if you look on this page, all of the images that appear to be rendered, show the dissector with close spacing https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/genius
Bikerumor actually has some interesting shots of the marketing presentation materials from what I can only assume was the press event for this bike. It shows some rather neat cut away's for the frame and shock that shed a bit more light on the twinlock shock designs and the frame routing for cabling.
It is a pretty big miss IMO to conceal the shock in the frame, and then not provide fully sleeved internal routing. I would always prefer external routing to internal... but going through the PITA nature of the stem routed cabling, burying the shock and then just wrapping the cables in foam to stop rattles is pretty bass ackwards to me.
The dissector seems to just be an anomaly of when Scott is using their renderings for the bike. if you look on this page, all of...
The dissector seems to just be an anomaly of when Scott is using their renderings for the bike. if you look on this page, all of the images that appear to be rendered, show the dissector with close spacing https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/genius
Bikerumor actually has some interesting shots of the marketing presentation materials from what I can only assume was the press event for this bike. It shows some rather neat cut away's for the frame and shock that shed a bit more light on the twinlock shock designs and the frame routing for cabling.
It is a pretty big miss IMO to conceal the shock in the frame, and then not provide fully sleeved internal routing. I would always prefer external routing to internal... but going through the PITA nature of the stem routed cabling, burying the shock and then just wrapping the cables in foam to stop rattles is pretty bass ackwards to me.
Scott's pretty good at going backwards. A few years ago they were making mostly-reasonable bikes that I could almost imagine buying, and their full-suspension XC bike was one of the most copied designs on the market. Now... well, you know.
From a statement from Merida on the other site about headset cable routing: (confirms the upcoming Code brake lever design and possibly others)
From a statement from Merida on the other site about headset cable routing: (confirms the upcoming Code brake lever design and possibly others)
Yeah, saw that and got concerned.
I like to run by dropper and shifter further inbound from my brakes. Long thumbs. Really worried it won't be possible with these new brakes. If there is still room under them, then I think they might actually be a good idea! They tuck brake body out of the way. I've had crashes where the brake body gets mangled from sticking right into the dirt...
We've talked about this. Looks like it'll be a pain to mix and match (running Shimano drivetrain for example). If you're on a full Sram program, you're fine, just run matchmakers and you're all good. And like I've mentioned, run them left to right. Check out my bike check to see how I have it set up.
Saw these just a few weeks ago.
March 2023 release
Code R, RSC and Ultimate versions available
Ultimate's have a carbon lever blade and silver/raw calliper
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next big thing and the way the industry was going. The way it turned out was Shimano fucked up hard. It was terrible and no one wanted it or bought it. It literally allowed SRAM to become what it is today.
Shimano was pretty salty about it that they stopped providing front derailleurs to bike company's who weren't ordering full groups, SRAMs shitty front derailleurs weren't cutting it, but people likely their shifters better.
Let bad choices hurt the company's that make them with your purchases.
Oh that part is clear. But I'm staying away from internal (frame) routing if possible, you can bet I'm staying away from through headset routing. So in that case this design is nothing but a nuisance for me.
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next...
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next big thing and the way the industry was going. The way it turned out was Shimano fucked up hard. It was terrible and no one wanted it or bought it. It literally allowed SRAM to become what it is today.
Shimano was pretty salty about it that they stopped providing front derailleurs to bike company's who weren't ordering full groups, SRAMs shitty front derailleurs weren't cutting it, but people likely their shifters better.
Let bad choices hurt the company's that make them with your purchases.
Great point. I spent years on sram because the shifters felt better even though the derailleurs sucked. I always thought low normal was a brilliant idea and the problem was they didn’t create a shifter to match. Everyone had to relearn to shift. If they’d made a shifter to match, I suspect we’d all be using low normal.
PB article with company interviews about why they chose headset routing had zero valid reasons for it. One of the explanations was to save 60 grams and make the layup easier. Easier layup doesn’t seem to come with cost reduction, and only someone who has someone else paying to do their mechanical work would care about 60 grams. I think the big benefit we will see to through headset routing is it’ll help drive sales toward small companies
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next...
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next big thing and the way the industry was going. The way it turned out was Shimano fucked up hard. It was terrible and no one wanted it or bought it. It literally allowed SRAM to become what it is today.
Shimano was pretty salty about it that they stopped providing front derailleurs to bike company's who weren't ordering full groups, SRAMs shitty front derailleurs weren't cutting it, but people likely their shifters better.
Let bad choices hurt the company's that make them with your purchases.
Great point. I spent years on sram because the shifters felt better even though the derailleurs sucked. I always thought low normal was a brilliant idea...
Great point. I spent years on sram because the shifters felt better even though the derailleurs sucked. I always thought low normal was a brilliant idea and the problem was they didn’t create a shifter to match. Everyone had to relearn to shift. If they’d made a shifter to match, I suspect we’d all be using low normal.
PB article with company interviews about why they chose headset routing had zero valid reasons for it. One of the explanations was to save 60 grams and make the layup easier. Easier layup doesn’t seem to come with cost reduction, and only someone who has someone else paying to do their mechanical work would care about 60 grams. I think the big benefit we will see to through headset routing is it’ll help drive sales toward small companies
The easier layup reasoning reminds me of the argument for press fit BB's. Easier for the manufacturers, crappier for the consumers.
The press fit BB eventually became such an annoyance, new frames actually advertise "threaded bottom bracket" as a feature. In a couple years will we see new bikes with "No Headset Routing" as a feature in the press release?
I'm still ready to go to battle to defend press fit BBs at every chance I get. The caveat with them is that the frame is manufactured _CORRECTLY_. Then it's a good idea, better than threaded, not just cheaper. But that's not possible with this industry.
As for low normal, if your cable breaks, your derailleur will be pulled towards the wheel. I prefer it out of the way if there's an issue. And the argument of 'at least you can pedal uphill in the 'default' gear' was somewhat valid in the days of 3x/2x front chainrings (when you had SOME speed while in the 32T rear sprocket by shifting to the middle or big chainring at the front, today you're SOL with 1x drivetrains. And you usually have to quickly drop a lot of gear coming into a climb, so wildly clicking away with a low normal derailleur will take longer than with a multiple shift shifter we have today. Granted, with 1x drivetrains and wide range cassettes it's usually hard to do multiple shifts when going to the larger sprockets as the jockey hits the cassette (the chain being 2 sprockets behind the chosen gear is effectively too long). And setting up the derailleur with no chain on it, it will be pulled into the cassette (as derailleurs move more or less horizontally today, not diagonally and the cage follows the cassette).
I actually used a low normal derailleur back in the day on one of my XC race bikes, but it was in conjuction with dual control. Being a kid with no clue about things I didn't really mind it, but having it the way we have it now makes a lot more sense to me to be honest...
This got me thinking. Internal cable routing was a disaster in its first iteration. To play with magnets and fiddle the cable through the frame…sounded like a rattlesnake.
now they sorted everything and it is straightforward (wireless is still from this perspective the easiest solution).
Internal cable-routing looks neat and needed time.
ngl had to unfollow him and Aston because of the whole „this and only this is the best and everything else is garbage“
Can the bike industry do better? Sure, but I don’t want to be bombarded all the time by how shit everything is, I’ve got the normal news for that.
also, Genius is up on binkpike. As expected from Scott there are a lot of cables, and everything is internal. Bike mechanics hate this simple trick.
https://m.pinkbike.com/photo/23664559/
Good luck routing that without cable channels
here's all the new scott genius tech in a video below and our PR here - https://www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/new-2023-scott-genius-heads…
The current one for reference
For all you Twinloc haters out there, the new Genius ST model disconnects the fork from the dual lockout so it's rear-only (and it's available with a reservoir shock).
So I can't figure out the brake cable routing for the new Scott.
They seem to cross over in the grommet that connects between the front and rear triangle...?
I can't imagine how they don't pull when the shock compresses. I know that all cables must move, but these seem to just pull tight around the shock. Is that the case? The cable routing is already suspect, but that grommet and crossover has me concerned.
It also makes it damn difficult to size cables, routing them under the bottom pivot like that. As if the cables weren't already a difficulty
I was half expecting the fork lockout cable to go through the headset and somehow through the steerer tube and come out under the crown...
Deep breath........
i have no idea if updated dissector or not, but that genius vid was just CAD/animation. maybe the tire rendering wasn't spot on?
After watching that video, I love my rigid single-speed even more.
The dissector seems to just be an anomaly of when Scott is using their renderings for the bike. if you look on this page, all of the images that appear to be rendered, show the dissector with close spacing https://www.scott-sports.com/us/en/genius
Bikerumor actually has some interesting shots of the marketing presentation materials from what I can only assume was the press event for this bike. It shows some rather neat cut away's for the frame and shock that shed a bit more light on the twinlock shock designs and the frame routing for cabling.
It is a pretty big miss IMO to conceal the shock in the frame, and then not provide fully sleeved internal routing. I would always prefer external routing to internal... but going through the PITA nature of the stem routed cabling, burying the shock and then just wrapping the cables in foam to stop rattles is pretty bass ackwards to me.
Scott's pretty good at going backwards. A few years ago they were making mostly-reasonable bikes that I could almost imagine buying, and their full-suspension XC bike was one of the most copied designs on the market. Now... well, you know.
And then there's this bike from AliExpress...
Anyone heard/seen anything about an update to the Rocky Instinct? Hoping for MX-mount compatibility (among other things)
From a statement from Merida on the other site about headset cable routing: (confirms the upcoming Code brake lever design and possibly others)
Yeah, saw that and got concerned.
I like to run by dropper and shifter further inbound from my brakes. Long thumbs. Really worried it won't be possible with these new brakes. If there is still room under them, then I think they might actually be a good idea! They tuck brake body out of the way. I've had crashes where the brake body gets mangled from sticking right into the dirt...
We've talked about this. Looks like it'll be a pain to mix and match (running Shimano drivetrain for example). If you're on a full Sram program, you're fine, just run matchmakers and you're all good. And like I've mentioned, run them left to right. Check out my bike check to see how I have it set up.
Let's take the way back machine to the mid 2000's. Shimano has just released Low normal and STI MTB shifters. They were touted as the next big thing and the way the industry was going. The way it turned out was Shimano fucked up hard. It was terrible and no one wanted it or bought it. It literally allowed SRAM to become what it is today.
Shimano was pretty salty about it that they stopped providing front derailleurs to bike company's who weren't ordering full groups, SRAMs shitty front derailleurs weren't cutting it, but people likely their shifters better.
Let bad choices hurt the company's that make them with your purchases.
I remember talking to someone at crankworx Whistler about a code brake that was closer to the bars was on someones bike.
This looks like it will be a pain to route hoses on normal bikes and make it look half good...
@WheelBased posits that it could be for internal hose routing: https://wheelbased.com/2022/06/17/hydraulic-brake-control-device-with-h…
Oh that part is clear. But I'm staying away from internal (frame) routing if possible, you can bet I'm staying away from through headset routing. So in that case this design is nothing but a nuisance for me.
Great point. I spent years on sram because the shifters felt better even though the derailleurs sucked. I always thought low normal was a brilliant idea and the problem was they didn’t create a shifter to match. Everyone had to relearn to shift. If they’d made a shifter to match, I suspect we’d all be using low normal.
PB article with company interviews about why they chose headset routing had zero valid reasons for it. One of the explanations was to save 60 grams and make the layup easier. Easier layup doesn’t seem to come with cost reduction, and only someone who has someone else paying to do their mechanical work would care about 60 grams. I think the big benefit we will see to through headset routing is it’ll help drive sales toward small companies
The easier layup reasoning reminds me of the argument for press fit BB's. Easier for the manufacturers, crappier for the consumers.
The press fit BB eventually became such an annoyance, new frames actually advertise "threaded bottom bracket" as a feature. In a couple years will we see new bikes with "No Headset Routing" as a feature in the press release?
I'm still ready to go to battle to defend press fit BBs at every chance I get. The caveat with them is that the frame is manufactured _CORRECTLY_. Then it's a good idea, better than threaded, not just cheaper. But that's not possible with this industry.
As for low normal, if your cable breaks, your derailleur will be pulled towards the wheel. I prefer it out of the way if there's an issue. And the argument of 'at least you can pedal uphill in the 'default' gear' was somewhat valid in the days of 3x/2x front chainrings (when you had SOME speed while in the 32T rear sprocket by shifting to the middle or big chainring at the front, today you're SOL with 1x drivetrains. And you usually have to quickly drop a lot of gear coming into a climb, so wildly clicking away with a low normal derailleur will take longer than with a multiple shift shifter we have today. Granted, with 1x drivetrains and wide range cassettes it's usually hard to do multiple shifts when going to the larger sprockets as the jockey hits the cassette (the chain being 2 sprockets behind the chosen gear is effectively too long). And setting up the derailleur with no chain on it, it will be pulled into the cassette (as derailleurs move more or less horizontally today, not diagonally and the cage follows the cassette).
I actually used a low normal derailleur back in the day on one of my XC race bikes, but it was in conjuction with dual control. Being a kid with no clue about things I didn't really mind it, but having it the way we have it now makes a lot more sense to me to be honest...
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation