You are totally right. And I just took a look at the linkage, sb150 for sure. Now why did Richie just post this???? Just some bar...
You are totally right. And I just took a look at the linkage, sb150 for sure. Now why did Richie just post this???? Just some bar drags like Matt Hunter for the gram I guess.
Jubal Davis posted a video of him bardragging that same corner on the new SB165, Richie responded with that in reference to same corner but on the old 165.
Edit: looks like Richie reposted it with a bit more context:
You are totally right. And I just took a look at the linkage, sb150 for sure. Now why did Richie just post this???? Just some bar...
You are totally right. And I just took a look at the linkage, sb150 for sure. Now why did Richie just post this???? Just some bar drags like Matt Hunter for the gram I guess.
Jubal Davis posted a video of him bardragging that same corner on the new SB165, Richie responded with that in reference to same corner but on...
Jubal Davis posted a video of him bardragging that same corner on the new SB165, Richie responded with that in reference to same corner but on the old 165.
Edit: looks like Richie reposted it with a bit more context:
Beringer the motorcycle brake brand out of France known for their high end brake systems for motorcycles has stepped into the mtb market, these brakes are...
Beringer the motorcycle brake brand out of France known for their high end brake systems for motorcycles has stepped into the mtb market, these brakes are CNC machined that are made in house in their factory in France. They are not cheap they start at €999 & €1199 for the custom option.
These look really interesting, the rods they use to guide the pads seem interesting, but does seem to require you use their pads. No info on piston sizes or lever feel though.
Looks interesting. Bummed Kona isn’t going to HP. I was in their HQ the other day, super cool dudes.
Why be bummed that it isn't going HP? The current Process X is rad, fast, and comfortable to ride. I don't think adding the complication of the HP and idler would really do anything to improve it.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
I find it really interesting that no one find a way to made CS length ajustable with udh. I guess the dropouts will be too big
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
I find it really interesting that no one find a way to made CS length ajustable with udh. I guess the dropouts will be too big
I think it's more to do with the very specific chain length and system setup on the Transmission stuff that keeps it from being a thing. They want everything based around A fixed chainstay length.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
I think it's more to do with the very specific chain length and system setup on the Transmission stuff that keeps it from being a thing...
I think it's more to do with the very specific chain length and system setup on the Transmission stuff that keeps it from being a thing. They want everything based around A fixed chainstay length.
Oh really? I thought it was more to do with the axle/hanger/T-type interface that made it hard to move back and forward?
I didn't think chainstay length had anything to do with it? Otherwise sag would affect the system, or turning you bike into a hardtail (longer CS as your suspension doesn't compress) would cause issues, but it doesn't.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
But you can only use the longer position when running a T-Type derailleur.
The reason why you can't have UDH hangers or T-Type derailleurs on an adjustable axle system, aside from the chainstay length issue (which can be managed with adding or subtracting links) is that they both require open space behind the axle to allow the hanger or the derailleur to sweep back in the event of a strike to the derailleur. It's part of their design, and frame companies are provided with clearance models to help with that design.
The reason why you can't have UDH hangers or T-Type derailleurs on an adjustable axle system, aside from the chainstay length issue (which can be managed...
The reason why you can't have UDH hangers or T-Type derailleurs on an adjustable axle system, aside from the chainstay length issue (which can be managed with adding or subtracting links) is that they both require open space behind the axle to allow the hanger or the derailleur to sweep back in the event of a strike to the derailleur. It's part of their design, and frame companies are provided with clearance models to help with that design.
SRAM must've done a terrible job with the clearance models, seeing frames breaking from rotated derailleurs.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new...
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
I find it really interesting that no one find a way to made CS length ajustable with udh. I guess the dropouts will be too big
Imagine making your dream bike with adjustable chainstays. Develop your short and long settings. Now put the CS in long position and remove the ability to adjust. Problem solved.
Jubal Davis posted a video of him bardragging that same corner on the new SB165, Richie responded with that in reference to same corner but on the old 165.
Edit: looks like Richie reposted it with a bit more context:
Thanks! And it's the same Matt Hunter corner:
These look really interesting, the rods they use to guide the pads seem interesting, but does seem to require you use their pads. No info on piston sizes or lever feel though.
Why be bummed that it isn't going HP? The current Process X is rad, fast, and comfortable to ride. I don't think adding the complication of the HP and idler would really do anything to improve it.
That's a new 153. Caleb is also on one in that video. Looks great, like a smaller X.
The current carbon Process X short CS position gives 157mm travel. Long CS position is 164mm.
Will be interesting how many other geo differences a new 153 with have. IMO 4mm of travel difference is not really perceptible.
Having two models with set CS lengths will let them use a UDH so that could be a factor.
I find it really interesting that no one find a way to made CS length ajustable with udh. I guess the dropouts will be too big
I think it's more to do with the very specific chain length and system setup on the Transmission stuff that keeps it from being a thing. They want everything based around A fixed chainstay length.
Oh really? I thought it was more to do with the axle/hanger/T-type interface that made it hard to move back and forward?
I didn't think chainstay length had anything to do with it? Otherwise sag would affect the system, or turning you bike into a hardtail (longer CS as your suspension doesn't compress) would cause issues, but it doesn't.
Raaw Madonna?
Frameworks new bonded prototype:
I;m pretty sure with the Madonna you can have either the adjustable CS or UDH.
Rocky Instinct has an adjustable chainstay with UDH.
https://bikes.com/collections/instinct
But you can only use the longer position when running a T-Type derailleur.
Pole bankrupt?! Just heard a comment on another site...
You are correct. I nuked my post, but you got there too quick!
https://yritys.io/en/cid/2573111-7
Hope not ...
Confirmed here.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/will-more-companies-be-shutting-dow…
Also Pole Bicycles announces bankruptcy (youtube.com)
Look at what they did for the Dreadnought v2, adjustable chainstays on that bike.
Chainstays are scaled by frame size, but are a fixed length not adjustable. Correct?
The reason why you can't have UDH hangers or T-Type derailleurs on an adjustable axle system, aside from the chainstay length issue (which can be managed with adding or subtracting links) is that they both require open space behind the axle to allow the hanger or the derailleur to sweep back in the event of a strike to the derailleur. It's part of their design, and frame companies are provided with clearance models to help with that design.
SRAM must've done a terrible job with the clearance models, seeing frames breaking from rotated derailleurs.
nope, they have fully detachable dropouts that you attach via bolts. It basically replaces the last part of the rear triangle.
No - there's also going to be modular drop out options for adjustable length like on the Supernought
Like Banshees modular dropouts? Seems like an obvious solution.
Imagine making your dream bike with adjustable chainstays. Develop your short and long settings. Now put the CS in long position and remove the ability to adjust. Problem solved.
Those can limit pivot placement on Horst link bikes.
Surprise surprise, DT Swiss launches a new 240 hub with more engagement (DEG).
Funny enough, the two ratchets are now both spring loaded again, unlike the last version.
https://www.dtswiss.com/de/innovationen/a-different-angle
"EASIER SERVICEABILITY SYSTEM
The innovative construction of the 240 DEG hub allows bearing replacement without special tools."
Finally!!
Kona going tits up? Saw some article on PB about it. Could see it coming for a while now with their bogo sales. Bummer deal if it’s true.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation