My bad, I use "tracking" as a way of describing stiffness as well, in the sense of both wheels staying in the same plane regardless of how nasty things are, without the twisting or noodling that I feel on every simple single pivot - but I make up my own uses of terminology all the time! I know it's more properly used to describe how the suspension "tracks" the ground and I agree with what you say.Ian Collins said:tracking and stiffness are two totally different things....
those bikes track better because of their suspension and they way they are set up.....my gripe with the orange is the suspension and how it tracks due to it.....the best tracking bike i've ridden is my own....DHR with avalanche....stiffness has to do with how wallowy and mushy it is when you really harp on it and slam in into turns, and make quick directional adjustments
Actually, retail on the '06 DHS Mono (not the 2:1, just the standard Mono) is $2349 this year. The 2:1's starting price of $2949 includes a rear hub and a chainguide and the floating brake. If you figure that a Hadley hub retails (actual MSRP) for $289, an MRP System 2 guide is $199, and the Foes floating brakes sell for $169 . . . so you're effectively receiving $657 in product, bringing the price of the bike down to $2292, right in there with a DHR, Cuervo, Sunday, etc.TheInedibleHulk said:Im not gonna read all ten pages to see if its been mentioned yet, but Foes needs to get off the crack pipe when it comes to pricing thier frames. As nice as the new mono looks, the V10 is 800 dollars cheaper and the M3 is 400 dollars cheaper. Not to mention that these days you can get a pretty decent DH bike from Giant or IH for the same cost as the mono frameset. 3g for a frame is ridiculous, especially for a bike without any really new technology or innovations, no matter how well executed. That said, if the price was right I wouldn't hesitate to ride that frame.
Yeah and there is also the fact that the people I know who ride Foes like them so much that they pretty much don't really care how much they cost. Maybe THEY are the ones on the pipe...James | Go-Ride said:Actually, retail on the '06 DHS Mono (not the 2:1, just the standard Mono) is $2349 this year. The 2:1's starting price of $2949 includes a rear hub and a chainguide and the floating brake. If you figure that a Hadley hub retails (actual MSRP) for $289, an MRP System 2 guide is $199, and the Foes floating brakes sell for $169 . . . so you're effectively receiving $657 in product, bringing the price of the bike down to $2292, right in there with a DHR, Cuervo, Sunday, etc.
I know people are going to say "nobody is going to pay MSRP for a chainguide, James." Well, most people on RM don't pay MSRP for frames either. I'm comparing apples to apples. Ya dig?
Hahaha, I didn't think crack junkies share, but hey, thanks. But really, no thanks. Now if you got some different ammo I could be down...Kanter said:pass the pipe baby. puff puff give.
I stand corrected. I suppose that price really isnt too bad. Now just take what I originally said about overpriced single pivots, and apply it to Orange . As for Jm's argument that the VPP bikes are overloaded and won't last like the foes, I've seen a pretty good stack of cracked foes frames that shoot that out of the water. Not to mention the inconvenience of no race support should your Curnutt have an issue. Time will tell on the V10 and M3 and you may be right, all I know is I havent had to do so much as tighten a bolt on my V10 this season. Bearings can always be replaced as well, although it is a pain in the ass.James | Go-Ride said:Actually, retail on the '06 DHS Mono (not the 2:1, just the standard Mono) is $2349 this year. The 2:1's starting price of $2949 includes a rear hub and a chainguide and the floating brake. If you figure that a Hadley hub retails (actual MSRP) for $289, an MRP System 2 guide is $199, and the Foes floating brakes sell for $169 . . . so you're effectively receiving $657 in product, bringing the price of the bike down to $2292, right in there with a DHR, Cuervo, Sunday, etc.
I know people are going to say "nobody is going to pay MSRP for a chainguide, James." Well, most people on RM don't pay MSRP for frames either. I'm comparing apples to apples. Ya dig?
Despite enormous evidence to the contrary (the M1 hasn't "beaten" any World Cup fields in years), I'm going to let that one slide.Msisle Dad said:The M1 is still the bike to beat- Great handling, easy to tune, simple..and fast
This comming from a guy who's selling Orange bikes on the boards...Msisle Dad said:The M1 is still the bike to beat- Great handling, easy to tune, simple..and fast
Bummer, he backed down. Oh well, I'll quote myself and explain. If the number of coils dictates the spring rate, one would obviously want the fewest number of coils possible to achieve the lightest weight spring. However, the material is limited in it's elastic range, so you have to have a certain number of coils or you'll end up bending the metal beyond it's capabilities when you compress the spring. So it's safe to assume that a 3" spring is already designed with the fewest number of coils possible for that length of travel. If you want a 5" spring of the same rate, you'll have to add coils or you'll exceed the materials ability to bend safely (elastically). So you add coils, which lowers the spring rate... coincidentally in about exactly the same proportion as you would want to for the decreased leverage ratio (for a given rider and suspension travel, if they were previously using a 3" x 300# spring, they'll now need a 5" x 180# spring). The other parameters (wire guage, shock diameter) haven't changed; you've added coils and now have a heavier spring, even though it's a lighter spring rate.ohio said:Sure:
Elastic range.
Your turn.
well, that might have a little something to do with the fact that no one rides an M1 on the WC anymore. i'm pretty sure if you put Hill or Peaty or Minaar or whoever on an M1 and said this is the bike you have to ride, they'd have no problem winning races. bike companies rely on marketing hype i.e. VP!!!!! to sell more bikes. people need to believe that newer is better so the big companies keep their riders aboard the latest fad in order to sell bikes.James | Go-Ride said:Despite enormous evidence to the contrary (the M1 hasn't "beaten" any World Cup fields in years), I'm going to let that one slide.
wikitypooshlag said:well, that might have a little something to do with the fact that no one rides an M1 on the WC anymore. i'm pretty sure if you put Hill or Peaty or Minaar or whoever on an M1 and said this is the bike you have to ride, they'd have no problem winning races. bike companies rely on marketing hype i.e. VP!!!!! to sell more bikes. people need to believe that newer is better so the big companies keep their riders aboard the latest fad in order to sell bikes.
but i doubt the M1 is "the bike to beat." it's a solid design. just like the good 'ol single pivot.
oh yeah, that FOES is soooo sexy. mmmmm.
Stating that the bike to beat is a bike that isn't winning just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems like the bike to beat should be beating everything else consistently. The M1 is not doing that.wikitypooshlag said:well, that might have a little something to do with the fact that no one rides an M1 on the WC anymore. i'm pretty sure if you put Hill or Peaty or Minaar or whoever on an M1 and said this is the bike you have to ride, they'd have no problem winning races. bike companies rely on marketing hype i.e. VP!!!!! to sell more bikes. people need to believe that newer is better so the big companies keep their riders aboard the latest fad in order to sell bikes.
but i doubt the M1 is "the bike to beat." it's a solid design. just like the good 'ol single pivot.
oh yeah, that FOES is soooo sexy. mmmmm.
he was talking about the other parameters, and you would change those for such a dramatic design change, not simply lob on more coils.ohio said:Bummer, he backed down. ....... The other parameters (wire guage, shock diameter) haven't changed; you've added coils and now have a heavier spring, even though it's a lighter spring rate.
This is not a complicated problem, nor is it really such a dramatic design change. Back-of-the-envelope calculation sorts this one out, and it clearly shows that you will be very very lucky if the spring weighs the same as on a 3" stroke shock. The fact is, for the same material/temper, it WILL weigh more or someone screwed up when they were designed the 3" spring.zedro said:he was talking about the other parameters, and you would change those for such a dramatic design change, not simply lob on more coils.
geez, spring calcs seem to be anything but quick as far as finding the most efficient coil, lotsa parameters to interval (assuming new spring ID/OD too), including using hollow coils.ohio said:This is not a complicated problem, nor is it really such a dramatic design change. Back-of-the-envelope calculation sorts this one out, and it clearly shows that you will be very very lucky if the spring weighs the same as on a 3" stroke shock. The fact is, for the same material/temper, it WILL weigh more or someone screwed up when they were designed the 3" spring.
*slaps forehead*zedro said:geez, spring calcs seem to be anything but quick as far as finding the most efficient coil, lotsa parameters to interval (assuming new spring ID/OD too), including using hollow coils.
gonna look at my spring rate calculator...
you are making it too simple lol.....i'm saying if you dont change the other parameters you'll end up with a needlessly heavy coil because you've held onto an arbitrary set of parameters based on a shorter spring. The diameter does matter.....anywho this ones going nowhere lol....ohio said:*slaps forehead*
you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. all the other parameters stay the same. we're not comparing a truck spring to a bike spring.
Even the shock diameter doesn't matter. Think of the coil spring unwrapped as a really long torsion spring if that helps (pretty accurate). Or think of a leaf spring (not quite as accurate). The same basics apply.
Do you at least get that for a given rider weight and travel, the necessary k-value will decrease in proportion to the stroke increase?
Yeah, git yer nerd talk out of my thread.zedro said:you are making it too simple lol.....i'm saying if you dont change the other parameters you'll end up with a needlessly heavy coil because you've held onto an arbitrary set of parameters based on a shorter spring. The diameter does matter.....anywho this ones going nowhere lol....
i'm pretty sure i saw a picture of you with a protractor in your pocketJames | Go-Ride said:Yeah, git yer nerd talk out of my thread.
I thought we had an agreement about non-disclosure.zedro said:i'm pretty sure i saw a picture of you with a protractor in your pocket
I hear they both studied the exact same newtonian physics and it's really just a question of zedro hating freedom.OGRipper said:I heard zedro and Ohio will be giving a "Spring Symposium" at IB this year. It's happening out behind the dumpsters at the Olympic Club at 1 am on Wednesday night, get your tickets now.
Yo, I used to hang with newton, and he once called zedro a punk bitch.kidwoo said:I hear they both studied the exact same newtonian physics and it's really just a question of zedro hating freedom.
I hate freedom, too. Is there a club or something I could sign up for?kidwoo said:I hear they both studied the exact same newtonian physics and it's really just a question of zedro hating freedom.
Tell you what, I'll move out of the theoretical for the moment. Let's assume that the folks at Fox design springs pretty well. Compare the weight (mass, not k-value) of two coil springs for a given shock (easiest to find will be vanilla RC springs):zedro said:you are making it too simple lol.....i'm saying if you dont change the other parameters you'll end up with a needlessly heavy coil because you've held onto an arbitrary set of parameters based on a shorter spring. The diameter does matter.....anywho this ones going nowhere lol....
zedro said:you are making it too simple lol.....i'm saying if you dont change the other parameters you'll end up with a needlessly heavy coil because you've held onto an arbitrary set of parameters based on a shorter spring. The diameter does matter.....anywho this ones going nowhere lol....
well, as tons of people are aware of, i bought Krispys 2 year old mono a couple of years ago and when i broke it in half back in april, i was offered a smokin' deal. Foes was even well aware that i was the second owner of a bike that had been put thru 4 years of torturous abuse and i was still given a replacement bike. every foes bike i have owned has been worth its weight in gold as far as i'm concerned.....Ian Collins said:.........my real problem is that foes doesn't accept thier problems, I can name 4 examples of someone cracking a foes and foes not even offering them a replacement frame at shop cost.....most people in the industry give you a new frame for free, foes won't even SELL you a new frame........
I think it has an 83mm BB but I'm not positive.karpiel_rules said:all this talk about the shock and how it going to work or not as the case maybe, all i want to know is how wide the bottom bracket is,and weather i,m going to have to buy another set of cranks.
jase.
You may want to try reading the 12 pages of information and questions about the bike preceding your inquiry.zmtber said:wow sick so what so speciasl sbout it something about it having two springs right
ohio said:*slaps forehead*
you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. all the other parameters stay the same. we're not comparing a truck spring to a bike spring.
Even the shock diameter doesn't matter. Think of the coil spring unwrapped as a really long torsion spring if that helps (pretty accurate). Or think of a leaf spring (not quite as accurate). The same basics apply.
Do you at least get that for a given rider weight and travel, the necessary k-value will decrease in proportion to the stroke increase?
he was talking to the other guy, no real info on component requirements.karpiel_rules said:i did quickly , must have missed it sorry.
jase.