Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air...
Cedric Gracia has been riding them for a while. I like the idea of their Idyll 39 SC Fork, reminds me of the RS totem air, but I'm not a huge fan that they're only available with a 20x110 boost axle. A larger diamater stiffer axle isn't a bad idea, but wheel availability isn't going the be good if you need to get a new one in a pinch.
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one? Maybe we'll see some...
Out of curiosity does anyone know if they have a legitimate reason for choosing a 39mm chassis over a 38 or 40mm one?
Maybe we'll see some of this on direct to consumer OEM, semi-pro, and staff deal bikes for a bit. I'm certainly in the "never again" camp (I think my feelings about BOS may have come out in this thread once or twice already), but I'd hope my fellow consumer would wait a while before jumping into these, at least at- or close to the generally high MSRP with only the promise that BOS CARES about you because they established the BOS CARE department. Although even I'll admit that's a better name than the BOS ACTIVE DISTAIN FOR OUR CUSTOMERS department.
So u cannot use dustwhiper or any other spares from other brands when they stop their business in a year
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a...
From when the 2019 Boxxer came out:
"Last year a number of RockShox's athletes raced on what was referred to internally as the 'Lyxxer' – a Boxxer that was running 29” Lyrik lowers. And yes, that means some of the hardest chargers in the world were racing with a 15mm thru-axle. In fact, there were serious discussions about using a 15 x 110mm thru axle on the new Boxxer, which would have allowed riders to swap wheels from their trail bike to their downhill bikes."
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built...
The 29 lyrik lowers allowed wheel clearance around the arch. Custom crowns were needed to accommodate the c-c of the bore on said lowers. We built two sets for the 2018 season. I think we had to limit the travel to 190 though
As i was intently scrolling thru to see if i could just pick up a cheep 27.5 boxxer and throw the 29' lowers off my creaking csu yari and have a yaxxer on my decoy. Oh well, back to work
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
🧐Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
🧐Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
I read this twice and I still have no idea what you intended to say other than jaded garbage.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the...
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
Here's a upper chain growth graph he published to back up his claims. My understanding is that he finds the X and Y coordinates of where to create a virtual high pivot for the chain. This would need to be designed for the target bike hence why he only makes it for his sponsor: Banshee
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll...
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
Have you considered putting a r1 engine in a yz 250? It might be more effective than high pivot.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
You (and Deewsh GPT) entirely left out the centering point of 'Upgrades' and limits on 'upgrades'.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:This comment seems to...
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
You (and Deewsh GPT) entirely left out the centering point of 'Upgrades' and limits on 'upgrades'.Rub your Nickels to your little heart's content.
You (and Deewsh GPT) entirely left out the centering point of 'Upgrades' and limits on 'upgrades'.
Rub your Nickels to your little heart's content.
Sure a racing series where everybody race the same bike/car/mtb/etc. makes for more entertaining competition where the pilot's ability is the only variable to explain his victory. But aside from that, what does it achieve ? It slows down of ever completely stop technical development, which arguably can help everyday riders have a much better time. Following your argument when should we draw the line ? Late 80s tech with no suspension, 26" and tubes ? Is geometry allowed to evolve or should we all race and ride clown bikes with 71° HA ? Or maybe late 00's ? By then idler were already developed and used, they stopped being used when people thought that lighteness was the be all, end all. Unless you draw the line at today's bike, going back in time and stopping tech development would mean that most people would have a worse time on their bikes, and probably wouldn't be able to ride what they currently do, and definitely not as safely as what is possible with today's bikes, thanks to the gear development that happened in DH. How often do you or other people go over the bar today ? When I started riding DH more than 20 years ago, going OTB was a rather frequent event for instance.
But maybe we didn't understand you, please elaborate and address all the points highlighted by the AI which as it seems many of us considered relevant and you can also address my points while you're at it, as I probably didn't understand you correctly ...
Another cool product I'm curious about. A couple years ago I would have thought it was hokey and unnecessary, but now after testing some of the new pedal kickback devices I'm drinking the Koolaid. Here's a thought to add to the discussion: adjustable lower pulley position to remove as much lower chain growth as possible. Idlers go a long way towards addressing chain growth, but only on the top of the drivetrain. I was having a sidebar chat with Erwan Ghesquiere (fellow nerd on this forum) about lower pulley position, because he's messing around with a moveable lower pulley and was able to find a location that yields negative chain growth. Pretty cool! If you combine a pedal kickback device (like Ochain, Rimpact, Sidekick Hub, or idler) with a strategically-placed lower pulley, you would (in theory) be able to remove nearly all suspension-induced chain movement. Adjustability of the lower pulley location is key because its optimal position is dependent on pivot locations and will be different for every bike. I'm curious if there will be a chainguide in the near future with independently adjustable upper and lower guide components, so you can adjust the top for chain retention and adjust the bottom for chain growth.
Another cool product I'm curious about. A couple years ago I would have thought it was hokey and unnecessary, but now after testing some of the...
Another cool product I'm curious about. A couple years ago I would have thought it was hokey and unnecessary, but now after testing some of the new pedal kickback devices I'm drinking the Koolaid. Here's a thought to add to the discussion: adjustable lower pulley position to remove as much lower chain growth as possible. Idlers go a long way towards addressing chain growth, but only on the top of the drivetrain. I was having a sidebar chat with Erwan Ghesquiere (fellow nerd on this forum) about lower pulley position, because he's messing around with a moveable lower pulley and was able to find a location that yields negative chain growth. Pretty cool! If you combine a pedal kickback device (like Ochain, Rimpact, Sidekick Hub, or idler) with a strategically-placed lower pulley, you would (in theory) be able to remove nearly all suspension-induced chain movement. Adjustability of the lower pulley location is key because its optimal position is dependent on pivot locations and will be different for every bike. I'm curious if there will be a chainguide in the near future with independently adjustable upper and lower guide components, so you can adjust the top for chain retention and adjust the bottom for chain growth.
I’m on board with this idea. I rode my Kavenz VHP last season with no lower guide pulley. The high pivot is great for reducing pedal kickback, but after tearing a derailleur off and riding a chainless lap at Whistler, the rear end without a doubt worked more freely, which I chalked up to having no chain or derailleur. This season Kavenz made a dedicated lower idler guide, the first thing I noticed was how when cycling the suspension the derailleur moved backward instead of being pulled forward. After riding it for the majority of this season, I’m convinced it allows the rear end to move more freely, while also reducing chain slap/noise.
Can someone with better math skills than me actually calculate how fast the rider needs to go to not have pedal kickback when the suspension compresses?
Can someone with better math skills than me actually calculate how fast the rider needs to go to not have pedal kickback when the suspension compresses?
The only good video demonstration I know of suggests ~ 30kph is the magic number it disappears.
Can someone with better math skills than me actually calculate how fast the rider needs to go to not have pedal kickback when the suspension compresses?
Now im wondering how much of a dh race track are they going below 30kph / 18 -19 mph. I guess braking has alot to do with it too but if it completely dissapeared over 30kph what would be the reason for all the world cup athletes running O-Chains?
There isn’t a magic number at which it disappears. It depends on how fast your suspension is getting compressed relative to how fast you are going and what gear you are in. If your suspension were to compress infinitely fast you would need to be going infinitely fast to not have any feedback from the chain. So while it’s most apparent when going slow, it really can happen at any speed.
Being in a higher gear makes you more likely to experience pedal kickback. Being in a low gear makes you less likely to experience pedal kickback. A larger chainring reduces how much your cranks get moved by pedal kickback because the same amount of chain growth corresponds to a smaller rotation of the chainring. If you were to run a smaller chainring in order to run a higher gear then you would experience kickback more often and it would be more apparent each time too.
There isn’t a magic number at which it disappears. It depends on how fast your suspension is getting compressed relative to how fast you are going...
There isn’t a magic number at which it disappears. It depends on how fast your suspension is getting compressed relative to how fast you are going and what gear you are in. If your suspension were to compress infinitely fast you would need to be going infinitely fast to not have any feedback from the chain. So while it’s most apparent when going slow, it really can happen at any speed.
Correct, but because we know suspension can't compress infinitely last, I'm curious what the data acquisition nerds can tell us about actual max rear wheel compression speeds. If you could figure out your max rear suspension velocity at the rear axle, you could work backwards and figure out the actual minimum speed for the freehub effects to disappear.
Also, I think people would be surprised how fast 30 km/h is on a rough trail with turns. Every time I've used a speedometer on an MTB I've been underwhelmed by how fast I was going. Feels like lightspeed = actually 28 mph. I'd wager around half of the impacts on a typical WC track occur at 30 km/h or less, maybe not at Fort Bill but definitely in the Alps, even Leogang. Leogang has some high speed bits, but it doesn't really have any sharp impacts on the motorway. Most of the impacts are in the woods or stump gardens going much, much slower.
Being in a higher gear makes you more likely to experience pedal kickback. Being in a low gear makes you less likely to experience pedal kickback...
Being in a higher gear makes you more likely to experience pedal kickback. Being in a low gear makes you less likely to experience pedal kickback. A larger chainring reduces how much your cranks get moved by pedal kickback because the same amount of chain growth corresponds to a smaller rotation of the chainring. If you were to run a smaller chainring in order to run a higher gear then you would experience kickback more often and it would be more apparent each time too.
you said what I wanted to say but I can't because I'm mildly dumb lol
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the wheel spinning at "25-30 km/h" (which is a guess) there was no pedal kickback. So the magic number could be anywhere between 0 and 25 km/h according to his video.
I was not convinced by his video, because he moved the rear wheel through the suspension range so slowly when he was demonstrating there was no pedal kickback. A true, violent impact on a rock or root is more like putting your bike in a stand, spinning the wheel up to speed, and then hitting your tire with a sledgehammer uppercut as hard as you can. I don't know what the actual velocity is, but suspension moves very, very, very quickly during peak impacts, and they accelerate up to those speeds almost instantaneously.
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the...
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the wheel spinning at "25-30 km/h" (which is a guess) there was no pedal kickback. So the magic number could be anywhere between 0 and 25 km/h according to his video.
I was not convinced by his video, because he moved the rear wheel through the suspension range so slowly when he was demonstrating there was no pedal kickback. A true, violent impact on a rock or root is more like putting your bike in a stand, spinning the wheel up to speed, and then hitting your tire with a sledgehammer uppercut as hard as you can. I don't know what the actual velocity is, but suspension moves very, very, very quickly during peak impacts, and they accelerate up to those speeds almost instantaneously.
someone on this forum? Or Steve from vorpsrung went through the math of a specific frame with actual numbers to highlight two circumstances, 1 of kickback and 1 of no kickback. For my memory it was like a 5 foot drop and the "cutoff" speed where you wouldnt see kickback was like 32km/h or something?
Its just a formula you could model a curve for a frame. Its annoying though as its frame specific, weight specific, shock specific and finally gear specific. Its not that complex to model, but its annoying there are so many parameters.
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the...
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the wheel spinning at "25-30 km/h" (which is a guess) there was no pedal kickback. So the magic number could be anywhere between 0 and 25 km/h according to his video.
I was not convinced by his video, because he moved the rear wheel through the suspension range so slowly when he was demonstrating there was no pedal kickback. A true, violent impact on a rock or root is more like putting your bike in a stand, spinning the wheel up to speed, and then hitting your tire with a sledgehammer uppercut as hard as you can. I don't know what the actual velocity is, but suspension moves very, very, very quickly during peak impacts, and they accelerate up to those speeds almost instantaneously.
A 5 m/s wheel speed input, which is reasonably fast, although not impossibly fast at all, 30 kph is right around where you wouldn’t experience kickback when in a 10t gear. 8 m/s is about as fast as you’ll ever see if I remember right. That would correspond to 49 kph. This is all using a typical leverage ratio at 50% travel for a 170 mm bike with a 65 mm stroke shock.
I’ve got something I’m working on right now that will have a massive range of leverage curves and axle paths. I’ll try and remember to share some data from that.
So u cannot use dustwhiper or any other spares from other brands when they stop their business in a year
Highly likely scenario from a company that has been up ad running for some 25 years lol.
As i was intently scrolling thru to see if i could just pick up a cheep 27.5 boxxer and throw the 29' lowers off my creaking csu yari and have a yaxxer on my decoy. Oh well, back to work
Where the hell were you when this exact issue with this exact company came up like 7 or 8 years ago?
Oh right, I remember, at the local o-ring store.
insta ban
Interesting...
🧐
Increasingly finding myself more and more skeptical toward 'professional' bike racing w/ recent changes to drive of the chain. I get the sought after outcome, really. In some circles of autoracing, there's a term 'motility' applied to a sorted combination of parts which is derivative of the movement of an organism. Which in a sense is what suspension does and is doing by manipulating the forces and effect of gravity.
There's no realworld basis for teh interwebz hosting free association of what's generally DH bikes and goings-on in Formula 1 racing. Is never the other way around however... have yet to watch an old race or tune into a current one where a voice is heard proclaiming '...this is the DH Bicycle of Motorsport' but I digress.
If it's all just pomp and fanfare then it is what it is. But most of F1 is meant to have a standard running gear to have engineers and designers apply a focus to and, there's just none of that with a Bicycle at all. The other crux of motorsport is mandated parts, some of which all parts are mandated. Again, little to none of that with the bicycle and to detriment of the rationale of such rule and regulation:
Cost Cap.
For UCI not enforce set schedules for parts like these to be fitted to bikes and then have the 'community' complain about a very abbreviated viewing schedule of only goes to reinforce a philosophical concept of the "Ship of Theseus" where no true originality can be made an argument.
These things, 'mass dampers' only highlight someone truly having lackluster wheel control. Exactly what the DH of Motorsport had over a decade ago w/ Team Renault except that was to quell tire rebound and gain an Aero advantage.
I read this twice and I still have no idea what you intended to say other than jaded garbage.
You definitely have truly lackluster diction.
I asked ChatGPT what Sesame Seed was talking about and to be okay with being brutally honest and distasteful if it wants. Enjoy:
This comment seems to be a convoluted attempt at drawing parallels between professional bike racing and motorsports, particularly Formula 1, but it’s a jumbled mess of loose associations and misplaced terminology. Let’s break it down brutally:
1. Chain Drive Skepticism: The commenter kicks off with skepticism about recent changes to bike racing due to “chain drive,” but gives no real details or context for what exactly they are skeptical about. It feels like they are grasping at straws, trying to sound knowledgeable while being vague about their actual critique.
2. Motility and Suspension Nonsense: They throw in the term “motility” from motorsports, trying to sound profound by equating it with bike suspension and the manipulation of gravity. This is a bizarre, over-complicated analogy that tries to link the biological term with bike mechanics in a way that doesn’t really make sense or add anything to the argument. It feels like an attempt to sound smart, but ends up being pretentious and confusing.
3. Useless F1 Comparison: The person rambles about how there is no connection between downhill (DH) biking and Formula 1, but goes on to compare them anyway, just to say there’s no point in comparing them. They even mention they’ve never heard anyone call a Formula 1 car “the DH Bicycle of Motorsport”—which is, unsurprisingly, irrelevant because no one in their right mind would make that comparison in the first place. It’s a strawman argument that detracts from any valid point they might have tried to make.
4. Cost Cap Irrelevance: They seem to miss the mark entirely on the concept of cost caps. In motorsport, cost caps are imposed to level the playing field between teams with different budgets. But how this is relevant to UCI or professional biking is left unclear. They seem to want UCI to enforce stricter part regulations, but don’t explain why or how this would improve the sport.
5. Ship of Theseus Tangent: They throw in some pseudo-philosophical garbage about the “Ship of Theseus” to imply that the constant upgrading of parts in biking removes any claim to originality. This is an overblown and irrelevant philosophical detour that doesn’t help their argument—whatever it even is at this point.
6. Mass Dampers and Renault’s Aero Advantage: They attempt to end on a high note by throwing in technical jargon about “mass dampers,” likening them to a decade-old strategy used by Renault in F1 to reduce tire rebound. The implication here is that people relying on mass dampers in biking are compensating for poor skills. But this comparison feels forced and unclear, as the two sports have very different engineering challenges.
In conclusion, the comment is an incoherent mess. The author tries to blend unrelated concepts from motorsport and biking to sound insightful, but instead they come across as someone with surface-level knowledge throwing around technical terms to mask the lack of a coherent point. It’s a hodgepodge of overreaching analogies and poorly articulated frustration that ultimately says very little.
Pretty cool concept. I remember first noticing this on Vali Höll's YT. She rode without the pulleys during practice and then they were added for the final. Rulezman also makes them for his Banshee bikes. He claims it completely removes pedal kickback.
How does that work? I mean the claims.
Here's a upper chain growth graph he published to back up his claims. My understanding is that he finds the X and Y coordinates of where to create a virtual high pivot for the chain. This would need to be designed for the target bike hence why he only makes it for his sponsor: Banshee
I just hope one day we as a community will stop trying to compare DH or any form of bike racing to motorsports. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to figure out how to make high pivot moto suspension for ultimate enduro prowess.
Have you considered putting a r1 engine in a yz 250? It might be more effective than high pivot.
You (and Deewsh GPT) entirely left out the centering point of 'Upgrades' and limits on 'upgrades'.
Rub your Nickels to your little heart's content.
Sure a racing series where everybody race the same bike/car/mtb/etc. makes for more entertaining competition where the pilot's ability is the only variable to explain his victory. But aside from that, what does it achieve ? It slows down of ever completely stop technical development, which arguably can help everyday riders have a much better time. Following your argument when should we draw the line ? Late 80s tech with no suspension, 26" and tubes ? Is geometry allowed to evolve or should we all race and ride clown bikes with 71° HA ? Or maybe late 00's ? By then idler were already developed and used, they stopped being used when people thought that lighteness was the be all, end all. Unless you draw the line at today's bike, going back in time and stopping tech development would mean that most people would have a worse time on their bikes, and probably wouldn't be able to ride what they currently do, and definitely not as safely as what is possible with today's bikes, thanks to the gear development that happened in DH. How often do you or other people go over the bar today ? When I started riding DH more than 20 years ago, going OTB was a rather frequent event for instance.
But maybe we didn't understand you, please elaborate and address all the points highlighted by the AI which as it seems many of us considered relevant and you can also address my points while you're at it, as I probably didn't understand you correctly ...
Another cool product I'm curious about. A couple years ago I would have thought it was hokey and unnecessary, but now after testing some of the new pedal kickback devices I'm drinking the Koolaid. Here's a thought to add to the discussion: adjustable lower pulley position to remove as much lower chain growth as possible. Idlers go a long way towards addressing chain growth, but only on the top of the drivetrain. I was having a sidebar chat with Erwan Ghesquiere (fellow nerd on this forum) about lower pulley position, because he's messing around with a moveable lower pulley and was able to find a location that yields negative chain growth. Pretty cool! If you combine a pedal kickback device (like Ochain, Rimpact, Sidekick Hub, or idler) with a strategically-placed lower pulley, you would (in theory) be able to remove nearly all suspension-induced chain movement. Adjustability of the lower pulley location is key because its optimal position is dependent on pivot locations and will be different for every bike. I'm curious if there will be a chainguide in the near future with independently adjustable upper and lower guide components, so you can adjust the top for chain retention and adjust the bottom for chain growth.
I’m on board with this idea. I rode my Kavenz VHP last season with no lower guide pulley. The high pivot is great for reducing pedal kickback, but after tearing a derailleur off and riding a chainless lap at Whistler, the rear end without a doubt worked more freely, which I chalked up to having no chain or derailleur. This season Kavenz made a dedicated lower idler guide, the first thing I noticed was how when cycling the suspension the derailleur moved backward instead of being pulled forward. After riding it for the majority of this season, I’m convinced it allows the rear end to move more freely, while also reducing chain slap/noise.
Can someone with better math skills than me actually calculate how fast the rider needs to go to not have pedal kickback when the suspension compresses?
The only good video demonstration I know of suggests ~ 30kph is the magic number it disappears.
Link: https://youtu.be/jzf_mEINIUE?t=6m10s
Now im wondering how much of a dh race track are they going below 30kph / 18 -19 mph. I guess braking has alot to do with it too but if it completely dissapeared over 30kph what would be the reason for all the world cup athletes running O-Chains?
There isn’t a magic number at which it disappears. It depends on how fast your suspension is getting compressed relative to how fast you are going and what gear you are in. If your suspension were to compress infinitely fast you would need to be going infinitely fast to not have any feedback from the chain. So while it’s most apparent when going slow, it really can happen at any speed.
he says to go smaller on chainring to run a smaller cog up back, but that's counterproductive. Front sprocket size has an impact on PK too.
Being in a higher gear makes you more likely to experience pedal kickback. Being in a low gear makes you less likely to experience pedal kickback. A larger chainring reduces how much your cranks get moved by pedal kickback because the same amount of chain growth corresponds to a smaller rotation of the chainring. If you were to run a smaller chainring in order to run a higher gear then you would experience kickback more often and it would be more apparent each time too.
Correct, but because we know suspension can't compress infinitely last, I'm curious what the data acquisition nerds can tell us about actual max rear wheel compression speeds. If you could figure out your max rear suspension velocity at the rear axle, you could work backwards and figure out the actual minimum speed for the freehub effects to disappear.
Also, I think people would be surprised how fast 30 km/h is on a rough trail with turns. Every time I've used a speedometer on an MTB I've been underwhelmed by how fast I was going. Feels like lightspeed = actually 28 mph. I'd wager around half of the impacts on a typical WC track occur at 30 km/h or less, maybe not at Fort Bill but definitely in the Alps, even Leogang. Leogang has some high speed bits, but it doesn't really have any sharp impacts on the motorway. Most of the impacts are in the woods or stump gardens going much, much slower.
you said what I wanted to say but I can't because I'm mildly dumb lol
hub goes brrrrrrrrr
After watching the Rulezman video, I don't think he's suggesting that 30 km/h is the magic number where kickback disappears. He simply suggested that, with the wheel spinning at "25-30 km/h" (which is a guess) there was no pedal kickback. So the magic number could be anywhere between 0 and 25 km/h according to his video.
I was not convinced by his video, because he moved the rear wheel through the suspension range so slowly when he was demonstrating there was no pedal kickback. A true, violent impact on a rock or root is more like putting your bike in a stand, spinning the wheel up to speed, and then hitting your tire with a sledgehammer uppercut as hard as you can. I don't know what the actual velocity is, but suspension moves very, very, very quickly during peak impacts, and they accelerate up to those speeds almost instantaneously.
someone on this forum? Or Steve from vorpsrung went through the math of a specific frame with actual numbers to highlight two circumstances, 1 of kickback and 1 of no kickback. For my memory it was like a 5 foot drop and the "cutoff" speed where you wouldnt see kickback was like 32km/h or something?
Its just a formula you could model a curve for a frame. Its annoying though as its frame specific, weight specific, shock specific and finally gear specific. Its not that complex to model, but its annoying there are so many parameters.
A 5 m/s wheel speed input, which is reasonably fast, although not impossibly fast at all, 30 kph is right around where you wouldn’t experience kickback when in a 10t gear. 8 m/s is about as fast as you’ll ever see if I remember right. That would correspond to 49 kph. This is all using a typical leverage ratio at 50% travel for a 170 mm bike with a 65 mm stroke shock.
I’ve got something I’m working on right now that will have a massive range of leverage curves and axle paths. I’ll try and remember to share some data from that.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation