Serious question: has anyone here actually had good luck running stick-on cable guides on a frame? Seems like they'd be good for half a run at...
Serious question: has anyone here actually had good luck running stick-on cable guides on a frame? Seems like they'd be good for half a run at a bike park if you're lucky. Haven't used them myself, but I know I can't get helicopter tape to stay stuck to my frame in my efforts to prevent foot rub on the paint, so I'm having a hard time believing that a tiny stick-on cable guide is going the distance while it's getting torqued and pulled in every direction by wayward cable housings.
Ran them with a touch of epoxy on an old frame for seat dropper for years, one came off, quick clean, re applied one of the 8 extras, good to go. Prolly lasted 4 years of riding 2-3 times a week, prolly still on, I just dont have the bike anymore
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on the spokes? only thing i could think was some kind of fairing/air director for the valve stem, but there's no way it can be that, right? there's nothing on the opposite side of the wheel that indicates balancing. maybe it's nothing at all, but figured i'd throw it out there. if anything loic's legend will grow more mysterious, ha!
"Similarly, 95% of the people that buy a carbon Stumpjumper never ride it anywhere close to its potential. But with this new version, Spesh has flipped...
"Similarly, 95% of the people that buy a carbon Stumpjumper never ride it anywhere close to its potential. But with this new version, Spesh has flipped the percentages compared to the Tacoma/4runner. They've optimized the bike for the 95% rather than the 5%. And they're not hiding it. From their website, "It literally uses more travel for the same size bump, thanks to its flatter spring curve in the first 70% of travel." They've made something that for more casual riders (i.e., the 95%) is going to be more comfortable for them (at the speeds and on the terrain they ride) and make it easier for them to find traction."
Yes - I spotted in the video there were a few shots where the rider was using like three quarters plus of the travel riding round a mildly chundery bermed corner.
Whats the final part of the travel going ot feel like on big hits?
Am I oversimplifying it by saying its really the inverse of the EpicWC from last year, where they managed to make it have minimal travel and no sag for moderate use but full movement on the bigger impacts.
If it is, then well done Spesh for changing what we accept as shock performance, even if it does turn into an evolutionary dead end.
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels...
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels for the 70%, like an Enduro, it’s how for that last 30% it doesn’t feel like a 145mm bike slamming into or riding at bottom out.
I think this is one of those developments that we are going to have to ride to understand.
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be cynical about the bike industry. Any company has to produce financial value. I know the people designing these things are passionate and knowledgeable.
But Spesh botched the explanation of what they have done and so much has gotten lost in the noise. Jason's article is the only clear explanation I've seen of the "modes" or tuning options afforded by the shock.
Second, that "white paper" seems like pseudo-science at its worst. The "Specialized Science Club" with it's own little logo? Really?
And wtf is this? How tall are the bumps? Does 60mm of rear travel indicate sag when 60/145 is ~40? If it isn't sag, then how is the wheel holding a steady 40% of it's travel for a full second? If it is sag, then I think I'd be reaching for the clickers to create some chassis stability? Am I totally missing something?
Regardless, the bottom-line claim is that, for a given bump, more suspension movement = superior bump force management, which is admittedly brilliant. Since nobody knows what "bump force management" is, no one can definitively say that more if it isn't automatically produced by more suspension travel.
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on...
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on the spokes? only thing i could think was some kind of fairing/air director for the valve stem, but there's no way it can be that, right? there's nothing on the opposite side of the wheel that indicates balancing. maybe it's nothing at all, but figured i'd throw it out there. if anything loic's legend will grow more mysterious, ha!
One of the mechanics was rebuilding his wheel using the park tool video where they tell you to put the tape on as a "reference spoke".
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on...
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on the spokes? only thing i could think was some kind of fairing/air director for the valve stem, but there's no way it can be that, right? there's nothing on the opposite side of the wheel that indicates balancing. maybe it's nothing at all, but figured i'd throw it out there. if anything loic's legend will grow more mysterious, ha!
"Similarly, 95% of the people that buy a carbon Stumpjumper never ride it anywhere close to its potential. But with this new version, Spesh has flipped...
"Similarly, 95% of the people that buy a carbon Stumpjumper never ride it anywhere close to its potential. But with this new version, Spesh has flipped the percentages compared to the Tacoma/4runner. They've optimized the bike for the 95% rather than the 5%. And they're not hiding it. From their website, "It literally uses more travel for the same size bump, thanks to its flatter spring curve in the first 70% of travel." They've made something that for more casual riders (i.e., the 95%) is going to be more comfortable for them (at the speeds and on the terrain they ride) and make it easier for them to find traction."
Yes - I spotted in the video there were a few shots where the rider was using like three quarters plus of the travel riding round a mildly chundery bermed corner.
Whats the final part of the travel going ot feel like on big hits?
Am I oversimplifying it by saying its really the inverse of the EpicWC from last year, where they managed to make it have minimal travel and no sag for moderate use but full movement on the bigger impacts.
If it is, then well done Spesh for changing what we accept as shock performance, even if it does turn into an evolutionary dead end.
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels...
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels for the 70%, like an Enduro, it’s how for that last 30% it doesn’t feel like a 145mm bike slamming into or riding at bottom out.
I think this is one of those developments that we are going to have to ride to understand.
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be...
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be cynical about the bike industry. Any company has to produce financial value. I know the people designing these things are passionate and knowledgeable.
But Spesh botched the explanation of what they have done and so much has gotten lost in the noise. Jason's article is the only clear explanation I've seen of the "modes" or tuning options afforded by the shock.
Second, that "white paper" seems like pseudo-science at its worst. The "Specialized Science Club" with it's own little logo? Really?
And wtf is this? How tall are the bumps? Does 60mm of rear travel indicate sag when 60/145 is ~40? If it isn't sag, then how is the wheel holding a steady 40% of it's travel for a full second? If it is sag, then I think I'd be reaching for the clickers to create some chassis stability? Am I totally missing something?
Regardless, the bottom-line claim is that, for a given bump, more suspension movement = superior bump force management, which is admittedly brilliant. Since nobody knows what "bump force management" is, no one can definitively say that more if it isn't automatically produced by more suspension travel.
They printed 60 twice on the Y-axis (LOL) so I think that is supposed to be 50mm or 34% which is slightly more realistic.
Still, that is a spectacularly pointless plot. It shows the wheel uses more travel at much higher peak speeds but doesn't say anything about the load at the wheel or force transmitted to the frame.
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels...
Read the white paper. There is less time bottoming out and less major bottom out events claimed. What’s revolutionary about the shock isn’t how it’s feels for the 70%, like an Enduro, it’s how for that last 30% it doesn’t feel like a 145mm bike slamming into or riding at bottom out.
I think this is one of those developments that we are going to have to ride to understand.
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be...
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be cynical about the bike industry. Any company has to produce financial value. I know the people designing these things are passionate and knowledgeable.
But Spesh botched the explanation of what they have done and so much has gotten lost in the noise. Jason's article is the only clear explanation I've seen of the "modes" or tuning options afforded by the shock.
Second, that "white paper" seems like pseudo-science at its worst. The "Specialized Science Club" with it's own little logo? Really?
And wtf is this? How tall are the bumps? Does 60mm of rear travel indicate sag when 60/145 is ~40? If it isn't sag, then how is the wheel holding a steady 40% of it's travel for a full second? If it is sag, then I think I'd be reaching for the clickers to create some chassis stability? Am I totally missing something?
Regardless, the bottom-line claim is that, for a given bump, more suspension movement = superior bump force management, which is admittedly brilliant. Since nobody knows what "bump force management" is, no one can definitively say that more if it isn't automatically produced by more suspension travel.
They printed 60 twice on the Y-axis (LOL) so I think that is supposed to be 50mm or 34% which is slightly more realistic.
Still, that...
They printed 60 twice on the Y-axis (LOL) so I think that is supposed to be 50mm or 34% which is slightly more realistic.
Still, that is a spectacularly pointless plot. It shows the wheel uses more travel at much higher peak speeds but doesn't say anything about the load at the wheel or force transmitted to the frame.
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is getting further out of the way, which is sort of always been the goal right? Damping or ramping would impede the travel, and a byproduct of the impedance would be forces transmitted to the rider, so I dunno, by inference we can assume that less impedance means less force transmitted to rider? I know they don’t spell that out in the Science Club paper but dude do you really want that mischief raw data for an mtb shock? Did you see a white paper that detailed before you bought the shock you have now?
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and whatever we're calling that OEM Transmission (NX?)
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is...
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is getting further out of the way, which is sort of always been the goal right? Damping or ramping would impede the travel, and a byproduct of the impedance would be forces transmitted to the rider, so I dunno, by inference we can assume that less impedance means less force transmitted to rider? I know they don’t spell that out in the Science Club paper but dude do you really want that mischief raw data for an mtb shock? Did you see a white paper that detailed before you bought the shock you have now?
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say the impact in question is a series of roots that are 50 mm tall, then it is accurate to say that the closer the deflection is to 50 mm then the lower the amount of force transmitted to the rider. Assuming it’s in phase with the roots of course. The graph in question here seems to show an extremely small root or something similar.
An example of where you need to know force is the classic huck to flat. It’s possible for max force to be extremely high while suspension movement is also large. This is what you get when the suspension isn’t supportive enough and requires lots of volume spacers and/or HBO. To handle the huck to flat, a certain amount of energy has to be absorbed. That is equal to force integrated over distance. If force is low for most of travel then it has to be very high at the end of travel. Conversely, if the suspension is more supportive in the earlier parts of travel then max force in this scenario can be lower since the suspension does more to absorb the impact earlier on. In the case of the stumpjumper, I can see certain scenarios where it could blow through the first 70% of shock stroke so fast that it feels as if it’s almost not there.
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and...
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and whatever we're calling that OEM Transmission (NX?)
At this point I think Loic's mechanic is just finding new ways to troll us bike nerds.
Wolrd cup racers are playing with spoke tension/spoke diameter to achieve different wheels characteristics. This color tape could be a visual thing to easily identify on which wheel they are. That's my guess.
Wolrd cup racers are playing with spoke tension/spoke diameter to achieve different wheels characteristics. This color tape could be a visual thing to easily identify on...
Wolrd cup racers are playing with spoke tension/spoke diameter to achieve different wheels characteristics. This color tape could be a visual thing to easily identify on which wheel they are. That's my guess.
I wish I had the time and support to do a test about wheel tension. But I really want to know how spoke tension affects wheel stiffness and ride feel in mountain biking.
The only good dataset I know of is the famous Sheldon Brown's look at wheel tension (iirc it was someone else who did the test that was on the website) where spoke tension doesn't actually change anything till it's so slack it completely deloads under deformation of the rim and the wheel loses all integrity.
I know that the pro's use different spoke diameters to tune wheels, as quite a few pro wheel builders believe the, let's call it Sheldon theory, that there is critical tension, and anything above that doesn't change since its the elasticity of the spoke, so the best way to change it is via using thinner spokes.
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say...
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say the impact in question is a series of roots that are 50 mm tall, then it is accurate to say that the closer the deflection is to 50 mm then the lower the amount of force transmitted to the rider. Assuming it’s in phase with the roots of course. The graph in question here seems to show an extremely small root or something similar.
An example of where you need to know force is the classic huck to flat. It’s possible for max force to be extremely high while suspension movement is also large. This is what you get when the suspension isn’t supportive enough and requires lots of volume spacers and/or HBO. To handle the huck to flat, a certain amount of energy has to be absorbed. That is equal to force integrated over distance. If force is low for most of travel then it has to be very high at the end of travel. Conversely, if the suspension is more supportive in the earlier parts of travel then max force in this scenario can be lower since the suspension does more to absorb the impact earlier on. In the case of the stumpjumper, I can see certain scenarios where it could blow through the first 70% of shock stroke so fast that it feels as if it’s almost not there.
Now back to my popcorn.
Having had a partly engaged test ride on the Expert, stock shock settings, base open mode settings - this is a vastly changed air shock feel. No hucking the bike on the streets, meandered over to a local pump track to pedal out of corners. (as one always should...)
Last large volume Air Shock was the R2C Vivid which did have that standard damping loosening after sustained DH. Switched to the Coil and ran that setup for years; am familiar w/ rear wheel feel. What's missing on the SJ 15 is the trait of an air shock to start to wad up 'spring rate' at times due to the dynamics of air. It does feel very much like a coil spring from starting of shock stroke movement, and then there's not the binding effect. It is a smooth platform, a stable platform.
Now to what extent the shock chooses to act when riding in the travel and hanging off the back of the bike in repeated fashion is a mystery - that'll be next week according to the social meed's in my area.
It does loft the front end well, the bike does gather itself up well and, the wheels feel well located in the air.
FWIW - I weigh 200lbs, 6' in height. OE settings for the FOX 36 are unchanged but the shock is running around 30% less air pressure over the Float X in my instance (210- vs 277psi). My own Float X I take to 290-295psi w/ no compression.
Fox Genie settings do seem they'll lend itself to a very progressive and manageable offset for the approach of full shock stroke but - yet TBD. Would have to assume having the outer canister host the higher workload of the spring duties - this will be a cooler running, stable damper.
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and...
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and whatever we're calling that OEM Transmission (NX?)
Righto please continue dunking on the marketing.
Similar thing here in Europe. The S-Works frame set is $3.500 in the US, but 4.500€ in Europe.
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and...
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and whatever we're calling that OEM Transmission (NX?)
If this isn't the space please move to a different forum. I'm sure it's different but my simple brain doesn't see how. Can someone dumb down the tech and explain how the Genie shock is different than say a EXT Aria. Don't they sort of do the same thing, have one spring rate for a portion of the stroke and then an different rate at the end. Setting the initial rate soft to get this more movement per a given obstacle but then ramping up the rate near the end of the stroke. Isn't this also sort of how Ohlins handles the ramp air chamber in their forks?
I am by no means a suspension expert so I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
With the Genie it's a step change that occurs when the stroke of the shock is big enough for the additional ports to be closed off. With the Aria, a triple chamber shock (same tech is available in forks), the spring is a continuous curve that is adjusted.
You could very likely achieve a very similar effect with a triple chamber shock, depending on the size of the chambers and the pressures set in the two chambers, but it's a lot more finnicky for the end user and requires a lot of playing around to get the desired effect (without knowing the geometry of the shock, having a calculator what a given setting will mean or without a dyno).
So it is possible the Genie achieves something similar to what is possible with the Aria, but it's completely idiot proof. Pump up the shock and be done with it. And what Aria enables you to do is a lot more than what Genie is able to do. It's a one 'data point' vs. a range of options.
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is...
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is getting further out of the way, which is sort of always been the goal right? Damping or ramping would impede the travel, and a byproduct of the impedance would be forces transmitted to the rider, so I dunno, by inference we can assume that less impedance means less force transmitted to rider? I know they don’t spell that out in the Science Club paper but dude do you really want that mischief raw data for an mtb shock? Did you see a white paper that detailed before you bought the shock you have now?
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say...
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say the impact in question is a series of roots that are 50 mm tall, then it is accurate to say that the closer the deflection is to 50 mm then the lower the amount of force transmitted to the rider. Assuming it’s in phase with the roots of course. The graph in question here seems to show an extremely small root or something similar.
An example of where you need to know force is the classic huck to flat. It’s possible for max force to be extremely high while suspension movement is also large. This is what you get when the suspension isn’t supportive enough and requires lots of volume spacers and/or HBO. To handle the huck to flat, a certain amount of energy has to be absorbed. That is equal to force integrated over distance. If force is low for most of travel then it has to be very high at the end of travel. Conversely, if the suspension is more supportive in the earlier parts of travel then max force in this scenario can be lower since the suspension does more to absorb the impact earlier on. In the case of the stumpjumper, I can see certain scenarios where it could blow through the first 70% of shock stroke so fast that it feels as if it’s almost not there.
Now back to my popcorn.
I would say it’s safe to assume that given that this is coming from a white paper, and how controlled the suspension is before and after the bump event, that this is from a controlled environment, maybe even on a test rig, not a rolling bicycle w/ rider on a trail. A repeatable test with as few variables as possible. Safe to assume. And safe to assume that it’s not a huck to flat, that’s not a helpful test for I dunno 50-80% of stumpy riders. And you’re right, in a huck to flat scenario I don’t think I would want such an extreme tune on the shock, but if I’m the type of rider who is regularly hucking my shit to flat, I’ll probably wait for the new status or enduro
Possible. Or the industry could realize some "big jump" in the next few years that makes your 2020 start to feel pretty long in the tooth...
Possible. Or the industry could realize some "big jump" in the next few years that makes your 2020 start to feel pretty long in the tooth. This may sound ridiculous but imagine some new wheel/tire tech that requires different frame standards. Or they figure out how to make gearboxes really good and the industry moves towards that. We don't know what it's going to be but it's virtually a guaranteed eventuality that there will be some significant improvement that isn't backwards compatible, and will make older bikes feel outdated. Would be interesting to graph and plot all the major innovations in MTB over the past 40 years. You could probably get pretty good at estimating when the next one will be.
No different than CPU/GPU innovation. Everyone says Moore's law is dead and then Apple releases the M1 chip giving 150% gains over intel. It's logarithmic curves, and between each jump a bunch of people start claiming innovation has plateaued (which is true, but only temporarily).
Sure, anything is possible. If you read between the lines, what I'm saying is we are entering into (or have entered into) a different era as is reflected by the development over the last 4-5 years, the trends and what is currently being released. IE - I'd be more inclined to say bikes are going to follow more of a line of dirt bikes, skis and golf clubs than they will the B200 vs H100.
I'm just about to post a long blog post (cringe) on this exact topic where I delineate Moore's Law from the rest of technology. In fact, I can't find another technology that mirrors Moore's Law and integrated circuits.
Does this mean there won't be technology that makes my current bike feel "dated"? No. There are a number of technologies that may slightly improve your on trail experience but do not make you faster. Electronic controls, brakes that give you a tingly sensation when you pull them because they are so nice, suspension with a gagillion different adjustments that let you tinker to your hearts delight etc. But none of these make you faster, more consistent or more efficient in a material way.
I would bet a lot of money I'm no faster on the new Stumpy 15, and have already shown myself I'm no faster on the new Epic 8 Evo than the Spur or Top Fuel.
You'll end up buying a new bike when yours is a total jangly clapwagon, like skis, golf clubs or dirt bikes - not because you MUST HAVE THAT TO KEEP UP.
...and when you do, they'll be a few nice to haves, but your lap times won't come down...at least for us mere mortals.
Got to see the new Schwalbe Assegai/Kryptotal type tyre at Eurobike today on a random bike that it probably should not have been on. Knobs look bigger generally to me, though I could not check side by side with the Maxxis/Conti equivalent.
Looks like it should be a good addition to the Schwalbe range.
you could epoxy/panel bond the guides on, but they aint coming off!
Ran them with a touch of epoxy on an old frame for seat dropper for years, one came off, quick clean, re applied one of the 8 extras, good to go. Prolly lasted 4 years of riding 2-3 times a week, prolly still on, I just dont have the bike anymore
Thank you! Never knew about these. Will look into them for sure.
I use That 3M stuff you find on Gopro's for stick on guides. Works a treat.- just make sure your frame is clean.
this just showed up in pit bits download (gallery will be up in a bit). loic's rear wheel. any ideas why this tape would be on the spokes? only thing i could think was some kind of fairing/air director for the valve stem, but there's no way it can be that, right? there's nothing on the opposite side of the wheel that indicates balancing. maybe it's nothing at all, but figured i'd throw it out there. if anything loic's legend will grow more mysterious, ha!
At this point I think Loic's mechanic is just finding new ways to troll us bike nerds.
i sure hope so!
I'm not being critical of the bike per se. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love it. And I wasn't trying to be cynical about the bike industry. Any company has to produce financial value. I know the people designing these things are passionate and knowledgeable.
But Spesh botched the explanation of what they have done and so much has gotten lost in the noise. Jason's article is the only clear explanation I've seen of the "modes" or tuning options afforded by the shock.
Second, that "white paper" seems like pseudo-science at its worst. The "Specialized Science Club" with it's own little logo? Really?
And wtf is this? How tall are the bumps? Does 60mm of rear travel indicate sag when 60/145 is ~40? If it isn't sag, then how is the wheel holding a steady 40% of it's travel for a full second? If it is sag, then I think I'd be reaching for the clickers to create some chassis stability? Am I totally missing something?
Regardless, the bottom-line claim is that, for a given bump, more suspension movement = superior bump force management, which is admittedly brilliant. Since nobody knows what "bump force management" is, no one can definitively say that more if it isn't automatically produced by more suspension travel.
One of the mechanics was rebuilding his wheel using the park tool video where they tell you to put the tape on as a "reference spoke".
It would probably be quite satisfying to him to see the stir little lights or something obscure causes!
I was going to say reference spoke tape or maybe colors based on what spoke gauge/tension if there’s multiple wheel sets.
They printed 60 twice on the Y-axis (LOL) so I think that is supposed to be 50mm or 34% which is slightly more realistic.
Still, that is a spectacularly pointless plot. It shows the wheel uses more travel at much higher peak speeds but doesn't say anything about the load at the wheel or force transmitted to the frame.
Can’t we infer that more travel used at a given speed means less impeded movement of the system? Aka for a given bump the wheel is getting further out of the way, which is sort of always been the goal right? Damping or ramping would impede the travel, and a byproduct of the impedance would be forces transmitted to the rider, so I dunno, by inference we can assume that less impedance means less force transmitted to rider? I know they don’t spell that out in the Science Club paper but dude do you really want that mischief raw data for an mtb shock? Did you see a white paper that detailed before you bought the shock you have now?
Can I just interject...
It scarcely matters how good the Stumpjumper's new suspension is when they want AU$8900 for a Rhythm fork, a Performance shock and whatever we're calling that OEM Transmission (NX?)
Righto please continue dunking on the marketing.
Without defining the nature of an impact, force measurements would be required to know which transmits the most force to the rider. Now if you say the impact in question is a series of roots that are 50 mm tall, then it is accurate to say that the closer the deflection is to 50 mm then the lower the amount of force transmitted to the rider. Assuming it’s in phase with the roots of course. The graph in question here seems to show an extremely small root or something similar.
An example of where you need to know force is the classic huck to flat. It’s possible for max force to be extremely high while suspension movement is also large. This is what you get when the suspension isn’t supportive enough and requires lots of volume spacers and/or HBO. To handle the huck to flat, a certain amount of energy has to be absorbed. That is equal to force integrated over distance. If force is low for most of travel then it has to be very high at the end of travel. Conversely, if the suspension is more supportive in the earlier parts of travel then max force in this scenario can be lower since the suspension does more to absorb the impact earlier on. In the case of the stumpjumper, I can see certain scenarios where it could blow through the first 70% of shock stroke so fast that it feels as if it’s almost not there.
Now back to my popcorn.
$9500 in NZ, eye watering for that spec...
Wolrd cup racers are playing with spoke tension/spoke diameter to achieve different wheels characteristics. This color tape could be a visual thing to easily identify on which wheel they are. That's my guess.
I wish I had the time and support to do a test about wheel tension. But I really want to know how spoke tension affects wheel stiffness and ride feel in mountain biking.
The only good dataset I know of is the famous Sheldon Brown's look at wheel tension (iirc it was someone else who did the test that was on the website) where spoke tension doesn't actually change anything till it's so slack it completely deloads under deformation of the rim and the wheel loses all integrity.
I know that the pro's use different spoke diameters to tune wheels, as quite a few pro wheel builders believe the, let's call it Sheldon theory, that there is critical tension, and anything above that doesn't change since its the elasticity of the spoke, so the best way to change it is via using thinner spokes.
From the les Gets pit bits video: some proper WORKS customization going on at GT. That's the stuff i like to see.
Having had a partly engaged test ride on the Expert, stock shock settings, base open mode settings - this is a vastly changed air shock feel. No hucking the bike on the streets, meandered over to a local pump track to pedal out of corners. (as one always should...)
Last large volume Air Shock was the R2C Vivid which did have that standard damping loosening after sustained DH. Switched to the Coil and ran that setup for years; am familiar w/ rear wheel feel. What's missing on the SJ 15 is the trait of an air shock to start to wad up 'spring rate' at times due to the dynamics of air. It does feel very much like a coil spring from starting of shock stroke movement, and then there's not the binding effect. It is a smooth platform, a stable platform.
Now to what extent the shock chooses to act when riding in the travel and hanging off the back of the bike in repeated fashion is a mystery - that'll be next week according to the social meed's in my area.
It does loft the front end well, the bike does gather itself up well and, the wheels feel well located in the air.
FWIW - I weigh 200lbs, 6' in height. OE settings for the FOX 36 are unchanged but the shock is running around 30% less air pressure over the Float X in my instance (210- vs 277psi). My own Float X I take to 290-295psi w/ no compression.
Fox Genie settings do seem they'll lend itself to a very progressive and manageable offset for the approach of full shock stroke but - yet TBD. Would have to assume having the outer canister host the higher workload of the spring duties - this will be a cooler running, stable damper.
Now back to my oatmeal.
Similar thing here in Europe. The S-Works frame set is $3.500 in the US, but 4.500€ in Europe.
Why? Because f*** you, that's why.
Does the EU price include VAT?
The US MSRP doesn't include sales tax which differs state to state.
If this isn't the space please move to a different forum. I'm sure it's different but my simple brain doesn't see how. Can someone dumb down the tech and explain how the Genie shock is different than say a EXT Aria. Don't they sort of do the same thing, have one spring rate for a portion of the stroke and then an different rate at the end. Setting the initial rate soft to get this more movement per a given obstacle but then ramping up the rate near the end of the stroke. Isn't this also sort of how Ohlins handles the ramp air chamber in their forks?
I am by no means a suspension expert so I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
With the Genie it's a step change that occurs when the stroke of the shock is big enough for the additional ports to be closed off. With the Aria, a triple chamber shock (same tech is available in forks), the spring is a continuous curve that is adjusted.
You could very likely achieve a very similar effect with a triple chamber shock, depending on the size of the chambers and the pressures set in the two chambers, but it's a lot more finnicky for the end user and requires a lot of playing around to get the desired effect (without knowing the geometry of the shock, having a calculator what a given setting will mean or without a dyno).
So it is possible the Genie achieves something similar to what is possible with the Aria, but it's completely idiot proof. Pump up the shock and be done with it. And what Aria enables you to do is a lot more than what Genie is able to do. It's a one 'data point' vs. a range of options.
Thanks! Mineral or dot would be great to know
I would say it’s safe to assume that given that this is coming from a white paper, and how controlled the suspension is before and after the bump event, that this is from a controlled environment, maybe even on a test rig, not a rolling bicycle w/ rider on a trail. A repeatable test with as few variables as possible. Safe to assume. And safe to assume that it’s not a huck to flat, that’s not a helpful test for I dunno 50-80% of stumpy riders. And you’re right, in a huck to flat scenario I don’t think I would want such an extreme tune on the shock, but if I’m the type of rider who is regularly hucking my shit to flat, I’ll probably wait for the new status or enduro
Sure, anything is possible. If you read between the lines, what I'm saying is we are entering into (or have entered into) a different era as is reflected by the development over the last 4-5 years, the trends and what is currently being released. IE - I'd be more inclined to say bikes are going to follow more of a line of dirt bikes, skis and golf clubs than they will the B200 vs H100.
I'm just about to post a long blog post (cringe) on this exact topic where I delineate Moore's Law from the rest of technology. In fact, I can't find another technology that mirrors Moore's Law and integrated circuits.
Does this mean there won't be technology that makes my current bike feel "dated"? No. There are a number of technologies that may slightly improve your on trail experience but do not make you faster. Electronic controls, brakes that give you a tingly sensation when you pull them because they are so nice, suspension with a gagillion different adjustments that let you tinker to your hearts delight etc. But none of these make you faster, more consistent or more efficient in a material way.
I would bet a lot of money I'm no faster on the new Stumpy 15, and have already shown myself I'm no faster on the new Epic 8 Evo than the Spur or Top Fuel.
You'll end up buying a new bike when yours is a total jangly clapwagon, like skis, golf clubs or dirt bikes - not because you MUST HAVE THAT TO KEEP UP.
...and when you do, they'll be a few nice to haves, but your lap times won't come down...at least for us mere mortals.
let's try this again. pit bits feature - https://www.vitalmtb.com/features/pit-bits-les-gets-world-cup-downhill
Got to see the new Schwalbe Assegai/Kryptotal type tyre at Eurobike today on a random bike that it probably should not have been on.
Knobs look bigger generally to me, though I could not check side by side with the Maxxis/Conti equivalent.
Looks like it should be a good addition to the Schwalbe range.
Also got to try the Bosch ABS braking today, really impressed with it, not at all what I was expecting and really changed my mind on the idea.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation