I know it's impossible to say when you compare rider to rider. But I'd love to just discuss the general idea of riders changing their bikes too much during race season with people who have followed for years and actually have stories worth telling on the subject.
As I go back through downhill content, this topic keeps popping up and it always feels so hush hush because a rider isn't gonna want to bash their ride's bike and the process involved in getting it to feel right. We hear of terrible sounding stories of prototyping on the fly (Rachel with the Atherton rig)... And arguably Aaron with the Intense... As well as good prototyping scenarios like Loic. Of course it seems the top riders do the prototyping more but, man what a risk it sounds like when you know the top riders are already so good on effectively a production frame. (With whatever adjustments and parts are needed. But not entirely different linkages or rear ends or whatever.
What is your opinion on basically DEVELOPING a bike not just in training camp or off season but literally in the races? Terrible idea? Works for some not others? Best way to min max a bike to get results? What stories have you heard in the past...
I'd say that the whole point of being at the races is to win races. The best way to do that, other than fitness and skills, is to use proven, trusted equipment. Get development and testing done before the season starts.
Yeah I was kinda surprised when I saw that in DH. It's not like it's totally uncommon but... When you speak with elite athletes and find out how their brains work... The last thing I'd want to do is have them trying new shit with multiple options all season long. Most of their adjustments are in the realm of 1 psi here and 1mm there. And some riders are using completely new linkages or basically changing frame geo mid season?
I'm still dubious on that Atherton method of design but I'd love to hear peoples personal stories on custom frames of that nature.
Welp... Maybe this thread might gain some traction now? It did look like a 50/50 case but... I just feel that bike snapped too easily on Bernard. At the end of the day landing like that may as well be a 50/50 gamble but that thing folded up instantly. It didn't even look like it fully went through a compression before it happened. Like the fork wasn't bottomed out. The second that front wheel touched down the frame was ready to give out. I dunno. NOT a good look imo
That frame has done hardline and alot of riding in NZ.
From what im aware is the frame was never lab tested... That wouldve picked up issues
Will be interesting to see how much info we get. Do you reckon point of failure is simply carbon tubes flexing against the stronger lug area until failure?
And yeah, if using a bike like this... (Which could be expensive of course.) How often do you consider fully changing it or at least changing the carbon sections (if you can re-use the lugs in that manner)?
On the photo posted it looks like the tubes pulled out from the headtube lug
Snapping is one thing. I would be kinda furious if they legit 'pulled out' with little to no damage. Hate to be a wet blanket was BK was doing well fine on the ol Phoenix. And I can say that about most of the dudes on new prototypes in regards to their old frames. And it's not like the Atherton frame has been the winningest rig regardless of rider. Meh. Just not a fan. If it develops better, of course, it may be all bikes in ~10 years. Otherwise not a fan
Galvanic corrosion is a huge issue when bonding aluminum and carbon like the Pivot frames. I would not be surprised if that played a role in the HT leaving the conversation.
Not a good look for Pivot, wonder what frame BK will show up at the WC with? Hard to get a snap like that out of your head.
If those frames were truly not lab tested (both fatigue and ultimate), that is insane and the riders are just rolling the dice each run. I can guarantee mfgs like Specialized and Trek will not even let an athlete touch a new frame until it has been put through the ringer in the test lab.
I bet at this point they are pretty close to having full carbon versions of that frame. Its been around for a while.
i did post in the other thread but is relevant:
After comparing images and videos online, it looks like The Carbon tubes have PULLED from the headtube lug. - you can see the colour difference between the glued piece and the rest of the tube which is exactly inline with where the lug is(in photos)
I think even more notable is... How clean that break would have to be for the frame to look like that after a catastrophic failure. It really does look like the frame is still in its jig... But with the HT lug and entire front end simply missing.
The Pivot lugs are just a single glued connection on the outside compared to the double lap joint of the Atherton bike. Obviously it would be next to impossible to machine out the same wall thickness of the Atherton's lugs but they are like that for a reason.
Could the fact that the Pivot head tube has both joins at almost a parallel angle be an issue? I.e if you pull directly away from the frame with the head tube it literally can slide off.
Whereas the Atherton frame has the top tube and downtube meet at an angle at the head tube (obviously they don't actually meet one another) which ignoring the bonding would make it more resistant to be pulled straight off
I came here to say just that. If it did pull out I am sure that is one of the main causes. Even if it didn’t, it is still a horrible way to design a lugged bike. The way the atherton bike is done all of the lugs would have to fail for it to pull apart, not just the head tube lug.
Yep, the video I got those images from has them pushing the headtube onto both the top tube and down tube at the same time. Overall some pretty poor engineering from pivot.
homepaged. @LePigPen, you creep me out now, but if you want to give me any stock tips for next week, i'm all ears.
sure hope bernard is doing ok. was glad to see him sitting and talking w/ the medic briefly on the webcast.
Yeah that's what I thought, whereas the assembly process for the Atherton's you see them fix the head tube to the jig and slide in the top and down tube individually then slowly do all the other joints in a bit of a jigsaw like fashion.
Looks like my guess was correct, glue failure.
The top lug looks cracked too?
What is the source for the claim that Pivot did not put this prototype through lab testing? Pivot certainly has the resources and the experience to lab-test any new frame and I would, frankly, be surprised if they had actually skipped that step. If true--big 'if'--it would be downright irresponsible.
One thing I have heard over and over in interviews with downhill racers is that is difficult to truly replicate 'race pace' riding or bike responses in testing. I'm not fast enough to know if that's accurate or not, but if so, then testing prototypes in actual races makes some sense. However, any prototype needs to be validated for safety, and I would hope that riders are given a choice of whether/when/where they want to use a prototype product.
Also, seems worth mentioning that we have also seen high-profile failures of non-prototype frames--e.g. Roger Viera (I think?) with the head tube disintegrating on his GT Fury last year, or Greg Minnaar snapping a Santa Cruz V10 in half in a crash. So it's clearly possible for a frame to pass all its testing and still fail under specific circumstances.
Until the other guy comes along with a prototype frame/fork/tyres that gives him/her a free half second per run. In pretty much all top level motorsports the drivers are in prototype equipment that gets updated and developed as the season progresses, same for road and track cycling. Using the 'proven' equipment is an easy way to fall behind, I don't see why MTB competition should be any different.
Cases in point, Vouilloz's V Process bike, Minnarr's Honda (and V10-29), Peaty's 22X, Hill's one of a kind Sunday, Absalon and Schurter's many XC bikes you couldn't buy, Bruni's Demos, the Atherton bikes and so on.
Aside from taking every advantage you can find, racing's a great place to develop new technology for production. If something doesn't work the stopwatch will make that abundantly clear, or the rider will when they smash the bike to pieces.
Meh. I feel like we're getting away from the actual title of the post. Prototyping DURING the season. I really dislike that. Obviously in the offseason you get to work. But I think it should be a teams goal to have either a production 'version' of that frame (so ideally one piece carbon) or just a fresh build of the prototype they developed in the off season.
Again a huge question here which is super valid is 'was that the Hardline bike?' I'd be blown away if that was the case. From what I've seen Pivot is happy to throw budget and frames BK's way to ensure the best results for the rider. However, with the prototype and proprietary nature of this bike it's not hard to imagine they were maybe... Maybe not going to send him a new bike until the season actually started. (If at all.) But it's a weird situation where you think surviving Hardline means it shouldn't break at Rotorua... But also GOING through Hardline means it could break doing a bunny hop in the parking lot. So I hope that was a new frame, I guess. But. I still think that Atherton method is good for the off season. But hey, I'm not Loic Bruni or Gee Atherton so... It is what it is. Sometimes failures just happen.
same for road and track cycling
Road frames have to be UCI approved and confirm to the ISO4210 testing standard. There is no minimum production number or maximum price but they do have to be available to buy (at some point).
I just posted on a retro IG account earlier today about prototype guinea pigging in season.
I remember reading an article with Brian Lopes about how dangerous the Cannondale Fulcrum was.
I remember back in the day, alot of NORBA National & World Cup riders put their lives on the line because everything was just made up on the fly by "aerospace engineer #395" & CAD was a program to make ugly, cool crap to CNC for suckers.
Pics pilfered from BikeRadar:
Seeing this makes em wonder why they wouldn't do a simple tab/bulge end to each tube. Slip into the sleeve & rotate a 1/4 turn to lock into place. Then make the other junction, whether seat tube or bottom bracket junction, rotate/lock in the opposite direction.
Then if the glue breaks down, it can't slip out and it can't rotate in it's sleeve.
Just fokking Ikea that chit!
I have zero insight to Pivot's development process but the mtb industry as a whole is SHOCKINGLY bad for not doing proper lab testing. Some do for sure, but a massive number of them skip that step sadly
Just curious... How does hydro forming work? Can it be done in small custom batches or is there expensive tooling involved like with carbon molds? If the issue with BK's bike was galvanic corrosion, why not make the tubes out of hydro formed aluminum? I know carbon is cooler now, but if it's going to corrode and come apart, shouldn't they just keep it all alloy?
Pfftt....first person to test/race the original carbon Demo's was their product manager.
Don't kid yourself. There are things the computer can't do that the big boys willingly strap up to test.
Neko Mulally raced with a cracked frame a year ago. Super sketch. I think i'd prefer welded aluminum lugged frame vs carbon / aluminum with glue. When has glue ever worked well on anything metal?
everyone keeps comparing the Pivot to the Atherton bikes, but lets not forget that Finn and Bruni have also spent the last WC season on lugged carbon/alu bikes...
Post a reply to: Prototyping during race season, yay or nay?