He also said that Cotic bikes are going to be making the front triangle on WorldWideCyclery's podcast
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle and carbon rear? If he cares about the sprung/unsprung mass ratio, a steel front triangle and carbon rear would be one way to chase a more favorable ratio.
I love his deal with FTW, but it would be cool if he keeps using his platform to test even more theories like high vs. low pivot, testing different anti-rise ratios, ochain, and now possiblly the effects of sprung vs. unsprung mass. Thanks for helping us nerd out, Neko. Hope he's able to get the sort of rapid turnaround time for prototypes from Cotic in Old England that he seemed to be able to get from Frank in New England.
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle...
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle and carbon rear? If he cares about the sprung/unsprung mass ratio, a steel front triangle and carbon rear would be one way to chase a more favorable ratio.
I love his deal with FTW, but it would be cool if he keeps using his platform to test even more theories like high vs. low pivot, testing different anti-rise ratios, ochain, and now possiblly the effects of sprung vs. unsprung mass. Thanks for helping us nerd out, Neko. Hope he's able to get the sort of rapid turnaround time for prototypes from Cotic in Old England that he seemed to be able to get from Frank in New England.
Thanks for the heads up. Listening to the Neko/Worldwide podcast, it sounds like the carbon rear end was less about pursuing lower unsprung weight and more about getting more consistent alignment for the pivot points and axle ends on the swingarm. Sounds like he was never quite able to get the consistency he wanted from one aluminum rear end to the next. Bad alignment causes all sorts of bearing issues and strange forces during suspension cycling. He didn't go into why he wants to try a steel front end, so who knows? Could be seeking a certain flex characteristic, chasing sprung/unsprung mass ratio, moving away from FTW, or because he heard STEEL IS REAL
Thanks for the heads up. Listening to the Neko/Worldwide podcast, it sounds like the carbon rear end was less about pursuing lower unsprung weight and more...
Thanks for the heads up. Listening to the Neko/Worldwide podcast, it sounds like the carbon rear end was less about pursuing lower unsprung weight and more about getting more consistent alignment for the pivot points and axle ends on the swingarm. Sounds like he was never quite able to get the consistency he wanted from one aluminum rear end to the next. Bad alignment causes all sorts of bearing issues and strange forces during suspension cycling. He didn't go into why he wants to try a steel front end, so who knows? Could be seeking a certain flex characteristic, chasing sprung/unsprung mass ratio, moving away from FTW, or because he heard STEEL IS REAL
I'd be shocked to find the steel front is not for the vibration damping steel offers. Damped steel front with the benefits of a rear carbon triangle is a wildly cool concept. Would like to try it.
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails.
The 'more comfortable' characteristic that comes with steel frames comes from smaller diameter (but slightly thicker) tubes that can be used because of steel's higher strength compared to aluminium. To make aluminium handle the forces, you need more of it which is not much of a problem as it's much lighter as well. And you can make the tubes thicker or larger diameter to reach the same goal. Making them larger diameter also makes them a lot stiffer which means stiffer frames. Cue the more stiffer, more better logic from the early aluminium days.
For what it's worth, steel, aluminium and titanium all have a fairly similar stiffness (young's modulus) to weight ratio. And at the end of the day (once it's plied up and oriented) carbon isn't thaaat far off as individual fibre strength might make it look.
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle...
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle and carbon rear? If he cares about the sprung/unsprung mass ratio, a steel front triangle and carbon rear would be one way to chase a more favorable ratio.
I love his deal with FTW, but it would be cool if he keeps using his platform to test even more theories like high vs. low pivot, testing different anti-rise ratios, ochain, and now possiblly the effects of sprung vs. unsprung mass. Thanks for helping us nerd out, Neko. Hope he's able to get the sort of rapid turnaround time for prototypes from Cotic in Old England that he seemed to be able to get from Frank in New England.
He said he’s having Cotic make a steel front triangle to test the characteristics. He didn’t say anything about not using FTW.
it’s a good podcast from WWC!
Also I’d like to add that the chassis characteristics of a steel motocross to aluminum chassis are big. I love the steel front ends on KTM. But Yamaha has proven to design some amazing flex character into their aluminum front ends.
so everything can go so far in either direction. Carbon can be stiff or soft also based on how many layers are put in the mix.
A great example of this is either the first carbon MotoGP chassis/swingarms and a load of problems that brought with them (unrideable bikes and going back and forth with older aluminium chassis) and the first generations of MTB carbon rims.
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle...
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle and carbon rear? If he cares about the sprung/unsprung mass ratio, a steel front triangle and carbon rear would be one way to chase a more favorable ratio.
I love his deal with FTW, but it would be cool if he keeps using his platform to test even more theories like high vs. low pivot, testing different anti-rise ratios, ochain, and now possiblly the effects of sprung vs. unsprung mass. Thanks for helping us nerd out, Neko. Hope he's able to get the sort of rapid turnaround time for prototypes from Cotic in Old England that he seemed to be able to get from Frank in New England.
He said he’s having Cotic make a steel front triangle to test the characteristics. He didn’t say anything about not using FTW.
it’s a good podcast...
He said he’s having Cotic make a steel front triangle to test the characteristics. He didn’t say anything about not using FTW.
it’s a good podcast from WWC!
Also I’d like to add that the chassis characteristics of a steel motocross to aluminum chassis are big. I love the steel front ends on KTM. But Yamaha has proven to design some amazing flex character into their aluminum front ends.
so everything can go so far in either direction. Carbon can be stiff or soft also based on how many layers are put in the mix.
I think when you’re the size of Yamaha it’s realistic to stick your team of engineers on it. Same goes for trek or specialized or the likes when it comes to shaving grams and maintaining a high ride quality with aluminum. When your Neko or a small time fabricator Ike Cotic/cromag simply swapping material is going to be a pretty big difference in ride feel regardless of any similarities in material on paper.
neko’s post about 500 runs on his latest iteration of the ftw bike seems like he’s pretty happy with where they got too. Pretty cool he’s taking the approach to really try anything and everything. A lot of people would be content to dub it the greatest bike ever make some money and call it a day.
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails...
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails.
The 'more comfortable' characteristic that comes with steel frames comes from smaller diameter (but slightly thicker) tubes that can be used because of steel's higher strength compared to aluminium. To make aluminium handle the forces, you need more of it which is not much of a problem as it's much lighter as well. And you can make the tubes thicker or larger diameter to reach the same goal. Making them larger diameter also makes them a lot stiffer which means stiffer frames. Cue the more stiffer, more better logic from the early aluminium days.
For what it's worth, steel, aluminium and titanium all have a fairly similar stiffness (young's modulus) to weight ratio. And at the end of the day (once it's plied up and oriented) carbon isn't thaaat far off as individual fibre strength might make it look.
If you don't believe me...
Yup ! I went from alu hardtail to steel and found f-all difference especially since my builder made is pretty stiff so it is nearly as stiff as the alu frame I had and can't feel any difference in dampening of vibration or whatever bs. Not what I was chasing (custom geo was the main reason I went with it) but it just confirmed all this. Now if you build you frame to be soft you can get a bike that is more comfortable and won't crack like an alu frame of similar flex but that's all.
Going with a steel single butted front triangle with a carbon rear triangle is probably the best way to test how much sprung/unsprung ratio has an effect on a mtb. The difference is clear as day on a eMtb which makes even the worst forks work "well" but the ratio is much higher than you could ever achieve on a normal mtb so definitely curious to see what he think of this.
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails...
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails.
The 'more comfortable' characteristic that comes with steel frames comes from smaller diameter (but slightly thicker) tubes that can be used because of steel's higher strength compared to aluminium. To make aluminium handle the forces, you need more of it which is not much of a problem as it's much lighter as well. And you can make the tubes thicker or larger diameter to reach the same goal. Making them larger diameter also makes them a lot stiffer which means stiffer frames. Cue the more stiffer, more better logic from the early aluminium days.
For what it's worth, steel, aluminium and titanium all have a fairly similar stiffness (young's modulus) to weight ratio. And at the end of the day (once it's plied up and oriented) carbon isn't thaaat far off as individual fibre strength might make it look.
Yup ! I went from alu hardtail to steel and found f-all difference especially since my builder made is pretty stiff so it is nearly as...
Yup ! I went from alu hardtail to steel and found f-all difference especially since my builder made is pretty stiff so it is nearly as stiff as the alu frame I had and can't feel any difference in dampening of vibration or whatever bs. Not what I was chasing (custom geo was the main reason I went with it) but it just confirmed all this. Now if you build you frame to be soft you can get a bike that is more comfortable and won't crack like an alu frame of similar flex but that's all.
Going with a steel single butted front triangle with a carbon rear triangle is probably the best way to test how much sprung/unsprung ratio has an effect on a mtb. The difference is clear as day on a eMtb which makes even the worst forks work "well" but the ratio is much higher than you could ever achieve on a normal mtb so definitely curious to see what he think of this.
In the auto world, this chassis damping topic is covered under "NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness)".
Some producers take it so seriously that they place their car into anechoic chambers to study/measure NVH.
Their strategy is not to eliminate it all, but to target the most unpleasant parts of it. I figure that this means targeting high-pitched/frequence noises for correction, perhaps using deadening material that is effective at it.
They also use the strategy of tuning noises. In other words, they believe that if something has to make noise, then make it sound more pleasant. The sound of a door slamming making a clean and satisfying sound, rather than making thud with a small cackony of mysterious internal rattling, is something they tuned. Even the sound of a tray retracting and returning to its stowed position is tuned to sound more satisfying. They only go so far with it, to avoid adding unnecessary weight and costs, I guess. A car rattling from some aftermarket sound system might show how far they took their NVH measures, considering how some luxury producers do tune things to sound great.
Remember those little metallic squares that some racers were putting on their wheels and hubs? Maybe those had some legit benefit, addressing bad NVH. Just a shame that it was overpriced and made out to be like snake oil. I did wonder if adding cut pieces of kilmat in similar fashion would help...
The NVH difference between diff materials was covered decently by Primos. The gist I got from it was that large diameter tubing of alum frames could resonate with harsher higher-pitched NVH. In contrast, smaller diameter tubing of steel frames can negate much of the higher pitched NVH maybe, giving the impression of being more damped. It might seem related to stiffness, since big girthy tubing provides stiffness. For example, 35mm handlebars might be no less compliant in the lab, but the NVH qualities might have gotten worse, leading to bad impressions. Some people want the buzz reduction, but like a certain high level of stiffness, which leads to products like Vibrocore.
Unsprung weight mostly affects suspension responsiveness. Think of the physics definition of "acceleration", changing speed and/or direction. So the suspension would take less to go from being at rest to compressing (small bump sensitivity), and also switch from compressing to rebounding in less time (energetic/responsive). I get the impresssion that it's generally not a big enough effect to compromise on durability, traction, braking, etc.
Sprung weight is a weird one, as it helps susp and stability, but reduces handling responsiveness. Reduction of sprung weight generally feels as if it increases fun factor (flatters fitness), if stiffness and other qualities aren't compromised. The additition of sprung weight doesn't seem bad, though, when placed low and centered.
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails...
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails.
The 'more comfortable' characteristic that comes with steel frames comes from smaller diameter (but slightly thicker) tubes that can be used because of steel's higher strength compared to aluminium. To make aluminium handle the forces, you need more of it which is not much of a problem as it's much lighter as well. And you can make the tubes thicker or larger diameter to reach the same goal. Making them larger diameter also makes them a lot stiffer which means stiffer frames. Cue the more stiffer, more better logic from the early aluminium days.
For what it's worth, steel, aluminium and titanium all have a fairly similar stiffness (young's modulus) to weight ratio. And at the end of the day (once it's plied up and oriented) carbon isn't thaaat far off as individual fibre strength might make it look.
If you don't believe me...
Based on the numbers, I agree. However, based on my completely non science and non proper back to back riding experience, I really felt that titanium frame is like magic carpet when I have been racing cyclocross compared to the chromoly and aluminum frames. The aluminum was definitely the stiffest. The frames was not from the same manufacturer.
Yeah. But this is not because of the material per se. It's because different materials with different characteristics give different tubing geometries and it is this that gives a different riding quality. That was my point. Steel does not damp vibration any more or less than aluminium, at least not significantly.
As for the snake oil stickers, they are snake oil. They can't do anything the way they were applied.
Yeah. But this is not because of the material per se. It's because different materials with different characteristics give different tubing geometries and it is this...
Yeah. But this is not because of the material per se. It's because different materials with different characteristics give different tubing geometries and it is this that gives a different riding quality. That was my point. Steel does not damp vibration any more or less than aluminium, at least not significantly.
As for the snake oil stickers, they are snake oil. They can't do anything the way they were applied.
Do not get me wrong. I agree with you. I do not trust to marketing BS. You can build awesome frame from whatever material if you do that right.
Disregard if this was said earlier. I’ve slacking on keeping up day to day
Wondering if neko is getting some ideas from Ben walker. He’s talked about him before. Ben has been building his own steel front ends with a gambler rear for enduro and downhill bikes since 2021(?) it looks like. He’s got some pretty cool stuff going. But seems like a similar path for Neko
Disregard if this was said earlier. I’ve slacking on keeping up day to day
Wondering if neko is getting some ideas from Ben walker...
Disregard if this was said earlier. I’ve slacking on keeping up day to day
Wondering if neko is getting some ideas from Ben walker. He’s talked about him before. Ben has been building his own steel front ends with a gambler rear for enduro and downhill bikes since 2021(?) it looks like. He’s got some pretty cool stuff going. But seems like a similar path for Neko
Maybe there's some thought that having a hefty front steel triangle will quiet the front end and help it track better. He's putting a much lighter carbon rear into an equation because all that material and weight are moving/unsprung & it frees up the wheel to react faster.
Add a heavier front center mass via a steel front end & you get a weight bias of the frame that's more downhill friendly...possibly a settled feel? Fork & wheel are the unsprung mass that has to change directions, but the top tube & BB shell area act like when Nico & V Process were adding steel plates to the down tube.
Or...maybe with steel he can produce dozens more front triangles w/ varying reach & head tube angles at a cheaper price?
If he's moving away from FTW producing...for some reason I assumed he and Frank were going to have a bike company selling this thing as early as this year....I just hope it's helped Frank's business prosper from the exposure alone.
Maybe there's some thought that having a hefty front steel triangle will quiet the front end and help it track better. He's putting a much lighter...
Maybe there's some thought that having a hefty front steel triangle will quiet the front end and help it track better. He's putting a much lighter carbon rear into an equation because all that material and weight are moving/unsprung & it frees up the wheel to react faster.
Add a heavier front center mass via a steel front end & you get a weight bias of the frame that's more downhill friendly...possibly a settled feel? Fork & wheel are the unsprung mass that has to change directions, but the top tube & BB shell area act like when Nico & V Process were adding steel plates to the down tube.
Or...maybe with steel he can produce dozens more front triangles w/ varying reach & head tube angles at a cheaper price?
If he's moving away from FTW producing...for some reason I assumed he and Frank were going to have a bike company selling this thing as early as this year....I just hope it's helped Frank's business prosper from the exposure alone.
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets so while the ease of manufacturing could be the reason I wouldn't bet on that but hey that's all speculation hopefully he will make a video explaining all this.
He's had a few issues with frames longevity and alignment (I suspect that's mostly down to the heat treating as it's a very exacting process). Also supply of suitable tube stock seems to have been difficult (from the vids). I'd guess without custom butted and shaped tubesets the weight diffence between the alu and steel frames is'nt that much and somewhat offset by the new carbon rear end. And with careful design the stiffness can be on par .If you even want that, compliance in dh bikes seems to be a growing consideration.
Neko has been refreshingly open throughout so I'd guess he'll be upfront with his desigh descisions for any cahnges......I can't wait!!
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets...
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets so while the ease of manufacturing could be the reason I wouldn't bet on that but hey that's all speculation hopefully he will make a video explaining all this.
I feel like ease of manufacture probably isn’t so much of a limiting factor if he’s tooling up carbon rear ends.
Which raises the question - has he tooled up for this or has this rear end appeared somewhere else?
I don't think that Neko and Frank The Welder ever had any intention of scaling up for mass production. Frank's a great guy and seems to be quite happy at the scale where he is. He gets to focus his considerable skills on a variety of small jobs split between bikes and motorcycles. Why become Frank The Factory? At this point Neko has the design mostly in place and it's time to move on to scale up production elsewhere.
On the Cotic rumor... I'd love to see Neko go with a steel front end. There's no reason why the front ends need to be skinny noodly things like so many steel bikes are. For my homemade bikes I went with 1 3/4" .049 walled down tubes which make for good strong, rigid and not overly heavy frames.
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets...
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets so while the ease of manufacturing could be the reason I wouldn't bet on that but hey that's all speculation hopefully he will make a video explaining all this.
Saw this craigslist Ad shared via Instagram of the new SRAM AXS derailleur and shifter. Not sure what the story is behind this person acquiring the product and now selling it (must not know what they have), but it's definitely a production version, so SRAM must be close to launching everything.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the new AXS will be a new standard correct? So do frames even exist in the market for a person to use this? Or is is built around dimensions to use on a UDH frame and just replace the UDH entirely.
Does that guy even know what he has? lol.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the...
Does that guy even know what he has? lol.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the new AXS will be a new standard correct? So do frames even exist in the market for a person to use this? Or is is built around dimensions to use on a UDH frame and just replace the UDH entirely.
I would think it somehow replaces a part of the UDH so all of those compatible frames should be able to accomodate that derailleur.
Seems like a hefty push from Sram, if going forward they only produce the new ones manufacturers more or less have to make their frames UDH compatible to be relevant either OE or aftermarket. Or they continue to offer the „current“ version. I‘m really curious to see where they’re heading with this
Does that guy even know what he has? lol.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the...
Does that guy even know what he has? lol.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the new AXS will be a new standard correct? So do frames even exist in the market for a person to use this? Or is is built around dimensions to use on a UDH frame and just replace the UDH entirely.
We really need to go back to gawdy Photoshop comedy. Spomer was one of the OG rebels of MTB cut & paste comedy.
He also said that Cotic bikes are going to be making the front triangle on WorldWideCyclery's podcast
That would be a big shakeup from his current deal with FTW. Cotic only makes steel and titanium bikes. Would that mean a steel front triangle and carbon rear? If he cares about the sprung/unsprung mass ratio, a steel front triangle and carbon rear would be one way to chase a more favorable ratio.
I love his deal with FTW, but it would be cool if he keeps using his platform to test even more theories like high vs. low pivot, testing different anti-rise ratios, ochain, and now possiblly the effects of sprung vs. unsprung mass. Thanks for helping us nerd out, Neko. Hope he's able to get the sort of rapid turnaround time for prototypes from Cotic in Old England that he seemed to be able to get from Frank in New England.
he talks about it at 46:29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgSM-eTMU5E&ab_channel=MTBPodcast
Thanks for the heads up. Listening to the Neko/Worldwide podcast, it sounds like the carbon rear end was less about pursuing lower unsprung weight and more about getting more consistent alignment for the pivot points and axle ends on the swingarm. Sounds like he was never quite able to get the consistency he wanted from one aluminum rear end to the next. Bad alignment causes all sorts of bearing issues and strange forces during suspension cycling. He didn't go into why he wants to try a steel front end, so who knows? Could be seeking a certain flex characteristic, chasing sprung/unsprung mass ratio, moving away from FTW, or because he heard STEEL IS REAL
I'd be shocked to find the steel front is not for the vibration damping steel offers. Damped steel front with the benefits of a rear carbon triangle is a wildly cool concept. Would like to try it.
Steel, as a material, has a damping characteristic that is diddly squat different from aluminium. They are both metallic crystals and are, vibrationally, hard as nails.
The 'more comfortable' characteristic that comes with steel frames comes from smaller diameter (but slightly thicker) tubes that can be used because of steel's higher strength compared to aluminium. To make aluminium handle the forces, you need more of it which is not much of a problem as it's much lighter as well. And you can make the tubes thicker or larger diameter to reach the same goal. Making them larger diameter also makes them a lot stiffer which means stiffer frames. Cue the more stiffer, more better logic from the early aluminium days.
For what it's worth, steel, aluminium and titanium all have a fairly similar stiffness (young's modulus) to weight ratio. And at the end of the day (once it's plied up and oriented) carbon isn't thaaat far off as individual fibre strength might make it look.
If you don't believe me...
He said he’s having Cotic make a steel front triangle to test the characteristics. He didn’t say anything about not using FTW.
it’s a good podcast from WWC!
Also I’d like to add that the chassis characteristics of a steel motocross to aluminum chassis are big. I love the steel front ends on KTM. But Yamaha has proven to design some amazing flex character into their aluminum front ends.
so everything can go so far in either direction. Carbon can be stiff or soft also based on how many layers are put in the mix.
A great example of this is either the first carbon MotoGP chassis/swingarms and a load of problems that brought with them (unrideable bikes and going back and forth with older aluminium chassis) and the first generations of MTB carbon rims.
I think when you’re the size of Yamaha it’s realistic to stick your team of engineers on it. Same goes for trek or specialized or the likes when it comes to shaving grams and maintaining a high ride quality with aluminum. When your Neko or a small time fabricator Ike Cotic/cromag simply swapping material is going to be a pretty big difference in ride feel regardless of any similarities in material on paper.
neko’s post about 500 runs on his latest iteration of the ftw bike seems like he’s pretty happy with where they got too. Pretty cool he’s taking the approach to really try anything and everything. A lot of people would be content to dub it the greatest bike ever make some money and call it a day.
Yup ! I went from alu hardtail to steel and found f-all difference especially since my builder made is pretty stiff so it is nearly as stiff as the alu frame I had and can't feel any difference in dampening of vibration or whatever bs. Not what I was chasing (custom geo was the main reason I went with it) but it just confirmed all this. Now if you build you frame to be soft you can get a bike that is more comfortable and won't crack like an alu frame of similar flex but that's all.
Going with a steel single butted front triangle with a carbon rear triangle is probably the best way to test how much sprung/unsprung ratio has an effect on a mtb. The difference is clear as day on a eMtb which makes even the worst forks work "well" but the ratio is much higher than you could ever achieve on a normal mtb so definitely curious to see what he think of this.
In the auto world, this chassis damping topic is covered under "NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness)".
Some producers take it so seriously that they place their car into anechoic chambers to study/measure NVH.
Their strategy is not to eliminate it all, but to target the most unpleasant parts of it. I figure that this means targeting high-pitched/frequence noises for correction, perhaps using deadening material that is effective at it.
They also use the strategy of tuning noises. In other words, they believe that if something has to make noise, then make it sound more pleasant. The sound of a door slamming making a clean and satisfying sound, rather than making thud with a small cackony of mysterious internal rattling, is something they tuned. Even the sound of a tray retracting and returning to its stowed position is tuned to sound more satisfying. They only go so far with it, to avoid adding unnecessary weight and costs, I guess. A car rattling from some aftermarket sound system might show how far they took their NVH measures, considering how some luxury producers do tune things to sound great.
Remember those little metallic squares that some racers were putting on their wheels and hubs? Maybe those had some legit benefit, addressing bad NVH. Just a shame that it was overpriced and made out to be like snake oil. I did wonder if adding cut pieces of kilmat in similar fashion would help...
The NVH difference between diff materials was covered decently by Primos. The gist I got from it was that large diameter tubing of alum frames could resonate with harsher higher-pitched NVH. In contrast, smaller diameter tubing of steel frames can negate much of the higher pitched NVH maybe, giving the impression of being more damped. It might seem related to stiffness, since big girthy tubing provides stiffness. For example, 35mm handlebars might be no less compliant in the lab, but the NVH qualities might have gotten worse, leading to bad impressions. Some people want the buzz reduction, but like a certain high level of stiffness, which leads to products like Vibrocore.
Unsprung weight mostly affects suspension responsiveness. Think of the physics definition of "acceleration", changing speed and/or direction. So the suspension would take less to go from being at rest to compressing (small bump sensitivity), and also switch from compressing to rebounding in less time (energetic/responsive). I get the impresssion that it's generally not a big enough effect to compromise on durability, traction, braking, etc.
Sprung weight is a weird one, as it helps susp and stability, but reduces handling responsiveness. Reduction of sprung weight generally feels as if it increases fun factor (flatters fitness), if stiffness and other qualities aren't compromised. The additition of sprung weight doesn't seem bad, though, when placed low and centered.
Based on the numbers, I agree. However, based on my completely non science and non proper back to back riding experience, I really felt that titanium frame is like magic carpet when I have been racing cyclocross compared to the chromoly and aluminum frames. The aluminum was definitely the stiffest. The frames was not from the same manufacturer.
Yeah. But this is not because of the material per se. It's because different materials with different characteristics give different tubing geometries and it is this that gives a different riding quality. That was my point. Steel does not damp vibration any more or less than aluminium, at least not significantly.
As for the snake oil stickers, they are snake oil. They can't do anything the way they were applied.
Do not get me wrong. I agree with you. I do not trust to marketing BS. You can build awesome frame from whatever material if you do that right.
Disregard if this was said earlier. I’ve slacking on keeping up day to day
Wondering if neko is getting some ideas from Ben walker. He’s talked about him before. Ben has been building his own steel front ends with a gambler rear for enduro and downhill bikes since 2021(?) it looks like. He’s got some pretty cool stuff going. But seems like a similar path for Neko
Well, he liked it on Instagram sooooo….
Probably from riding Evan Turpin contra when he was in California.
https://contrabikes.com
Maybe there's some thought that having a hefty front steel triangle will quiet the front end and help it track better. He's putting a much lighter carbon rear into an equation because all that material and weight are moving/unsprung & it frees up the wheel to react faster.
Add a heavier front center mass via a steel front end & you get a weight bias of the frame that's more downhill friendly...possibly a settled feel? Fork & wheel are the unsprung mass that has to change directions, but the top tube & BB shell area act like when Nico & V Process were adding steel plates to the down tube.
Or...maybe with steel he can produce dozens more front triangles w/ varying reach & head tube angles at a cheaper price?
If he's moving away from FTW producing...for some reason I assumed he and Frank were going to have a bike company selling this thing as early as this year....I just hope it's helped Frank's business prosper from the exposure alone.
You basically just explained the theory of sprung/unsprung, and I would believe that is the reason. He already had adjustability in his front end with headsets so while the ease of manufacturing could be the reason I wouldn't bet on that but hey that's all speculation hopefully he will make a video explaining all this.
He's had a few issues with frames longevity and alignment (I suspect that's mostly down to the heat treating as it's a very exacting process). Also supply of suitable tube stock seems to have been difficult (from the vids). I'd guess without custom butted and shaped tubesets the weight diffence between the alu and steel frames is'nt that much and somewhat offset by the new carbon rear end. And with careful design the stiffness can be on par .If you even want that, compliance in dh bikes seems to be a growing consideration.
Neko has been refreshingly open throughout so I'd guess he'll be upfront with his desigh descisions for any cahnges......I can't wait!!
Interesting video about Neko's bike and an interview with him.
Ben Walker post quite a bit of his bike-building adventures in this thread on Ridemonkey:
https://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/the-garage-frame-building-journe…
I feel like ease of manufacture probably isn’t so much of a limiting factor if he’s tooling up carbon rear ends.
Which raises the question - has he tooled up for this or has this rear end appeared somewhere else?
I don't think that Neko and Frank The Welder ever had any intention of scaling up for mass production. Frank's a great guy and seems to be quite happy at the scale where he is. He gets to focus his considerable skills on a variety of small jobs split between bikes and motorcycles. Why become Frank The Factory? At this point Neko has the design mostly in place and it's time to move on to scale up production elsewhere.
On the Cotic rumor... I'd love to see Neko go with a steel front end. There's no reason why the front ends need to be skinny noodly things like so many steel bikes are. For my homemade bikes I went with 1 3/4" .049 walled down tubes which make for good strong, rigid and not overly heavy frames.
I believe he said in a podcast or something that he had to pay for a mold. I could be mistaken..
Saw this craigslist Ad shared via Instagram of the new SRAM AXS derailleur and shifter. Not sure what the story is behind this person acquiring the product and now selling it (must not know what they have), but it's definitely a production version, so SRAM must be close to launching everything.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/scz/bop/d/santa-cruz-sram-eagle-axs-xx1-bl…;
Does that guy even know what he has? lol.
I don't know if I'm being a complete dumbass, but I assume that the mounting for the new AXS will be a new standard correct? So do frames even exist in the market for a person to use this? Or is is built around dimensions to use on a UDH frame and just replace the UDH entirely.
Should match to every frame with UDH.
I would think it somehow replaces a part of the UDH so all of those compatible frames should be able to accomodate that derailleur.
Seems like a hefty push from Sram, if going forward they only produce the new ones manufacturers more or less have to make their frames UDH compatible to be relevant either OE or aftermarket. Or they continue to offer the „current“ version. I‘m really curious to see where they’re heading with this
It's built around the UDH dimensions: https://bikerumor.com/next-gen-sram-eagle-direct-mount-derailleur-is-mo…
(One thought is that SRAM "gave away" UDH to create the market for this)
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation