New downtime podcast with Brook Macdonald is an interesting listen; he speaks a lot about the old Mondraker bike and how bad it was. Apparently just...
New downtime podcast with Brook Macdonald is an interesting listen; he speaks a lot about the old Mondraker bike and how bad it was. Apparently just completely unpredictable to ride.
sounds like their new prototype is a welcome one, any idea what they’ve changed?
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the anti-squat. It was seriously high on the old bike - around 233% in the 10T gear when paired with a 36T chainring. This ridiculous amount of AS probably played a large part in the unpredictable feeling that Brook talks about - 233% would likely mess with your suspension performance pretty bad. Mondraker probably also changed the carbon layup. In "Making Up The Numbers", Brook talked about how the carbon frame was unduly flexy under heavier riders like himself.
Brook also talks about how the bike was not progressive enough in the same episode of the podcast. Maybe that'll change too.
It's a real shame that the old Mondraker had those two big design flaws because it looks like a really solid frame in every other regard. Hope Brook gets better results with the new bike!
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the...
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the anti-squat. It was seriously high on the old bike - around 233% in the 10T gear when paired with a 36T chainring. This ridiculous amount of AS probably played a large part in the unpredictable feeling that Brook talks about - 233% would likely mess with your suspension performance pretty bad. Mondraker probably also changed the carbon layup. In "Making Up The Numbers", Brook talked about how the carbon frame was unduly flexy under heavier riders like himself.
Brook also talks about how the bike was not progressive enough in the same episode of the podcast. Maybe that'll change too.
It's a real shame that the old Mondraker had those two big design flaws because it looks like a really solid frame in every other regard. Hope Brook gets better results with the new bike!
I'd guess the rapidly decreasing anti-squat throughout the entire travel would play a role in that unpredictable feeling (it decreases force at the wheel and causes the pedaling behavior to vary drastically depending on the position in the travel), but that's been an inherent trait of Mondraker's Zero suspension design for its entire existence, so barring any drastic changes I'd expect that to carry over to some extent.
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63...
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63 deg seemed absurd a few years back, now there are 130mm trail bikes with this much rake.
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63...
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63 deg seemed absurd a few years back, now there are 130mm trail bikes with this much rake.
Not a trail bike, but my Orbea Rallón R4 with a Superstar Slackerizer -2° headset sits at 61.5° when sagged, and there's no way I'm going...
Not a trail bike, but my Orbea Rallón R4 with a Superstar Slackerizer -2° headset sits at 61.5° when sagged, and there's no way I'm going back to the original 64.5° static HA!
New downtime podcast with Brook Macdonald is an interesting listen; he speaks a lot about the old Mondraker bike and how bad it was. Apparently just...
New downtime podcast with Brook Macdonald is an interesting listen; he speaks a lot about the old Mondraker bike and how bad it was. Apparently just completely unpredictable to ride.
sounds like their new prototype is a welcome one, any idea what they’ve changed?
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the...
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the anti-squat. It was seriously high on the old bike - around 233% in the 10T gear when paired with a 36T chainring. This ridiculous amount of AS probably played a large part in the unpredictable feeling that Brook talks about - 233% would likely mess with your suspension performance pretty bad. Mondraker probably also changed the carbon layup. In "Making Up The Numbers", Brook talked about how the carbon frame was unduly flexy under heavier riders like himself.
Brook also talks about how the bike was not progressive enough in the same episode of the podcast. Maybe that'll change too.
It's a real shame that the old Mondraker had those two big design flaws because it looks like a really solid frame in every other regard. Hope Brook gets better results with the new bike!
Yeah I was wondering about the Vivid. I wonder if all that preseason testing uncovered some design flaw that they're fixing. I think I've only seen...
Yeah I was wondering about the Vivid. I wonder if all that preseason testing uncovered some design flaw that they're fixing. I think I've only seen a couple in pit photos since then - the big name guys that were running the Vivid in preseason are all on coil or SD air.
vali höll ran the vivid in leogang during practice, there‘s even a photo on pinkbike.
I know this has probably been covered elsewhere, but I’m very curious about these bars as I’m terrified of carbon bars but desperately want all the...
I know this has probably been covered elsewhere, but I’m very curious about these bars as I’m terrified of carbon bars but desperately want all the “compliance” possible out of my cockpit. Do the One Up 35 bars have a noticeable uptick in comfort over any random 31.8 bar, or is it just marketing fodder?
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar...
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar on my "trail" bike. I still have a touch of trepidation about that carbon bar, so I'm a little curious about this one.
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues...
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues and am fairly sensitive to bar differences so ymmv).
My bike came with Alloy RaceFace 35s and the difference going to the OneUp carbon was insane, so much less feedback through the hands.
Both are more powerful than MT5s and you can still use whatever pads you want.
If you want best bang for your buck brakes got...
Both are more powerful than MT5s and you can still use whatever pads you want.
If you want best bang for your buck brakes got to go Hayes.
That's prob one of the best recommendos I've seen a co make. If it goes against their financial interests and they say it anyway, that's not to be taken lightly. Kudos!
I know this has probably been covered elsewhere, but I’m very curious about these bars as I’m terrified of carbon bars but desperately want all the...
I know this has probably been covered elsewhere, but I’m very curious about these bars as I’m terrified of carbon bars but desperately want all the “compliance” possible out of my cockpit. Do the One Up 35 bars have a noticeable uptick in comfort over any random 31.8 bar, or is it just marketing fodder?
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar...
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar on my "trail" bike. I still have a touch of trepidation about that carbon bar, so I'm a little curious about this one.
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues...
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues and am fairly sensitive to bar differences so ymmv).
The shape of that bar is super unique and allows for more vibration damping in it. Without sounding too product preachy, it was that bar that made us really rethink bar design and why our new alloy has a very similar profile to take the jar and buzz out of hits.
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63...
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63 deg seemed absurd a few years back, now there are 130mm trail bikes with this much rake.
I was looking at the Canfield brothers' CBF suspension patent when I noticed Chris has two pending patents under his Suspension Formulas kinematics company, and they seem pretty interesting. One is essentially a frame with different main pivot locations to provide a "selectable axle path" (seen here), while the other is a new 4- or 6-bar suspension system with the BB located on the lower link (here). At the bottom of Suspension Formulas' website they list their available designs, with the addition of two new ones: "Chris' Formula Zero/CFZero" which mentions the moving-BB design patent in its description, and "Chris' Formula Three/CF3" which is described as a "quiver killer" (which I assume is the adjustable axle path design). No idea when these may make it to market, but I can't wait. (The CF1 design is the existing one on the Canfield Jedi for those wondering)
I was looking at the Canfield brothers' CBF suspension patent when I noticed Chris has two pending patents under his Suspension Formulas kinematics company, and they...
I was looking at the Canfield brothers' CBF suspension patent when I noticed Chris has two pending patents under his Suspension Formulas kinematics company, and they seem pretty interesting. One is essentially a frame with different main pivot locations to provide a "selectable axle path" (seen here), while the other is a new 4- or 6-bar suspension system with the BB located on the lower link (here). At the bottom of Suspension Formulas' website they list their available designs, with the addition of two new ones: "Chris' Formula Zero/CFZero" which mentions the moving-BB design patent in its description, and "Chris' Formula Three/CF3" which is described as a "quiver killer" (which I assume is the adjustable axle path design). No idea when these may make it to market, but I can't wait. (The CF1 design is the existing one on the Canfield Jedi for those wondering)
I heard Chris was racing a CF3 bike at enduro of nations or some race like that. Never saw any pictures though.
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar...
Good question. I have the carbon OneUp on my bigger bike, and I feel like it has a touch more damping than the 31.8 Deity bar on my "trail" bike. I still have a touch of trepidation about that carbon bar, so I'm a little curious about this one.
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues...
I've run the carbon OneUps and Chromag OSX bars back-to-back to test and the OneUps were noticeably more comfortable/compliant than the Chromags. (I've got wrist issues and am fairly sensitive to bar differences so ymmv).
The shape of that bar is super unique and allows for more vibration damping in it. Without sounding too product preachy, it was that bar that...
The shape of that bar is super unique and allows for more vibration damping in it. Without sounding too product preachy, it was that bar that made us really rethink bar design and why our new alloy has a very similar profile to take the jar and buzz out of hits.
In theory, a moving BB mounted on the lower link could pass without an idler while still having a rearward axle path because of a high pivot, right? The only questionable point in all this would be how will the rider feel with this moving BB - guess in order for it to not feel weird, the BB must move only several mm (may be equal to the axle path). Am i correct in these assumptions?
In theory, a moving BB mounted on the lower link could pass without an idler while still having a rearward axle path because of a high...
In theory, a moving BB mounted on the lower link could pass without an idler while still having a rearward axle path because of a high pivot, right? The only questionable point in all this would be how will the rider feel with this moving BB - guess in order for it to not feel weird, the BB must move only several mm (may be equal to the axle path). Am i correct in these assumptions?
Previous issues with URT designs were that pedal pressure from your feet is counter to the suspension movement of the BB and resists suspension action in small bump compliance.
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63...
atleast the rear center looks reasonably long'ish.
I would not be surprised if head angles are around 60 deg in a few years, remembering that 63 deg seemed absurd a few years back, now there are 130mm trail bikes with this much rake.
it's 140mm, but in 2019 the Stumpy Evo. 63.5 deg Head angle.
That's just off the top of my head
But yeah, maybe I was overzealous...
it's 140mm, but in 2019 the Stumpy Evo. 63.5 deg Head angle.
That's just off the top of my head
But yeah, maybe I was overzealous in my comment, god forbid lol.
Was more curious than anything,
my V1 Sentinel was 140 with a 64HA, it was a blast to ride.
‘but I think the Stumpy EVO, and Sentinel were sorta in a class of their own, you could easily classify them as Enduro bikes, especially as they run 160 forks, and Transition even have the green light for 170’s
Can't say for sure what Mondraker has changed on the new bike or how they've gone about changing it, but I bet that they lowered the anti-squat. It was seriously high on the old bike - around 233% in the 10T gear when paired with a 36T chainring. This ridiculous amount of AS probably played a large part in the unpredictable feeling that Brook talks about - 233% would likely mess with your suspension performance pretty bad. Mondraker probably also changed the carbon layup. In "Making Up The Numbers", Brook talked about how the carbon frame was unduly flexy under heavier riders like himself.
Brook also talks about how the bike was not progressive enough in the same episode of the podcast. Maybe that'll change too.
It's a real shame that the old Mondraker had those two big design flaws because it looks like a really solid frame in every other regard. Hope Brook gets better results with the new bike!
I'd guess the rapidly decreasing anti-squat throughout the entire travel would play a role in that unpredictable feeling (it decreases force at the wheel and causes the pedaling behavior to vary drastically depending on the position in the travel), but that's been an inherent trait of Mondraker's Zero suspension design for its entire existence, so barring any drastic changes I'd expect that to carry over to some extent.
Right, So no 130 trail bike with a 63 HA
If my vest had sleeves, it would be my jacket....
So no 130 trail bike with a 63 HA stock
Here are the kinematics
vali höll ran the vivid in leogang during practice, there‘s even a photo on pinkbike.
Meta SX V5 are online. 170/165.
Ehm, where? Certainly not on their website.
https://www.commencal-store.de/new-meta-sx-v5-c102x4318283
Huh. Frame seems to be identical to the Meta V5, just with a different set of links and a 170mm fork.
that would be cool to buy some links to go back and forth for a few hundred $$$
And a shock
Bird does that with the aeris 9, a 180 mm link is just over 100 eur. Same shock though.
Rocky Mountain does too. with the Altitude and Instinct (link and shock).
"You are not authorized" when I click the page.
WAO Arrival would like to have a chat
pit bits 2 (now working) from vds - https://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/features/pit-bits-2-val-di-sole-world-c…
Hilarious from Commencal to mark the launch of the Meta SX V5: https://discover.commencal.com/landing-meta-sx-v5-eu-en/.
My bike came with Alloy RaceFace 35s and the difference going to the OneUp carbon was insane, so much less feedback through the hands.
That's prob one of the best recommendos I've seen a co make. If it goes against their financial interests and they say it anyway, that's not to be taken lightly. Kudos!
The shape of that bar is super unique and allows for more vibration damping in it. Without sounding too product preachy, it was that bar that made us really rethink bar design and why our new alloy has a very similar profile to take the jar and buzz out of hits.
it's 140mm, but in 2019 the Stumpy Evo. 63.5 deg Head angle.
That's just off the top of my head
But yeah, maybe I was overzealous in my comment, god forbid lol.
Well, looks like Jesse's got the new Vivid Air. It can only be so long now... Right?
I was looking at the Canfield brothers' CBF suspension patent when I noticed Chris has two pending patents under his Suspension Formulas kinematics company, and they seem pretty interesting. One is essentially a frame with different main pivot locations to provide a "selectable axle path" (seen here), while the other is a new 4- or 6-bar suspension system with the BB located on the lower link (here). At the bottom of Suspension Formulas' website they list their available designs, with the addition of two new ones: "Chris' Formula Zero/CFZero" which mentions the moving-BB design patent in its description, and "Chris' Formula Three/CF3" which is described as a "quiver killer" (which I assume is the adjustable axle path design). No idea when these may make it to market, but I can't wait. (The CF1 design is the existing one on the Canfield Jedi for those wondering)
I heard Chris was racing a CF3 bike at enduro of nations or some race like that. Never saw any pictures though.
CF3?
›
There are more photos: https://www.rootsandrain.com/rider4964/chris-canfield/photos/filters/page1/
CF1:
no 12° backsweep, no buy
In theory, a moving BB mounted on the lower link could pass without an idler while still having a rearward axle path because of a high pivot, right? The only questionable point in all this would be how will the rider feel with this moving BB - guess in order for it to not feel weird, the BB must move only several mm (may be equal to the axle path). Am i correct in these assumptions?
Previous issues with URT designs were that pedal pressure from your feet is counter to the suspension movement of the BB and resists suspension action in small bump compliance.
Was more curious than anything,
my V1 Sentinel was 140 with a 64HA, it was a blast to ride.
‘but I think the Stumpy EVO, and Sentinel were sorta in a class of their own, you could easily classify them as Enduro bikes, especially as they run 160 forks, and Transition even have the green light for 170’s
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation