[Sandro]

here's a question: are there any budget "enduro" bikes out there? I know there's finally a decent selection of reasonably priced DH bikes available, but has that translated over to enderppo?

I can only speak from a European perspective, where i would say the answer is a definite yes, provided you have a realistic definiton of "budget". And it's not just the direct sales companies offering good deals - a Giant Reign 2 Ltd has an MSRP of 2299€ and still comes equipped with a Pike, Monarch, Reverb Stealth and a mix of Deore and SLX.

 

[slimshady]

here's a question: are there any budget "enduro" bikes out there? I know there's finally a decent selection of reasonably priced DH bikes available, but has that translated over to enderppo?

Giant seems to have the best bang for the buck. Out of them I dare to add the Orbea Rallón family to your budget-friendly endubro bike request.

 

[schwaaa31]

here's a question: are there any budget "enduro" bikes out there? I know there's finally a decent selection of reasonably priced DH bikes available, but has that translated over to enderppo?

Commencal have a few in their online store that I would consider reasonable.

 

[Dogboy]

here's a question: are there any budget "enduro" bikes out there? I know there's finally a decent selection of reasonably priced DH bikes available, but has that translated over to enderppo?

GT has some pretty good deals in the Sanction lineup. The middle model is a great spec for the money.

 

[Sandwich]

bad ass Jamis

i have NOT heard that in a while...

sylentK, how many of those were SRAM parts? Just out of morbid curiousity.

 

[jonKranked]

good to know (not that i'm in the market). i remember for the longest time all (or most) DH offerings were either upper end of the price spectrum, or complete crap.

 

[StiHacka]

Speaking about bearings, why aren't needle bearings used in suspension applications? Axial loads?

 

[Sandwich]

In practical usage they seem to develop play particularly in locations that don't rotate a lot

 

[Jm_]

Speaking about bearings, why aren't needle bearings used in suspension applications? Axial loads?

Hard to engineer into small places I'd imagine, like chainstays/rear axle pivots. Also require bushings to deal with the axial loads. Needle bearings have been used on main pivots of many bikes, in the sliders of cracknfail headshocks and leftys and a few other applications. Tapered bearings would make a lot more sense IMO (what cars use), but a again, expensive to engineer into small places. That leaves angular contact bearings, if you really really want bearings, as a pretty good cost-to-performance solution. I'd think the bigger the pivot is, the more logical it would be to use tapered or needle bearings. On the other hand, the IGUS bushings with grease-ports were a damn good setup and better for limited rotation duties (suspension) than most any bearing system I've ever used with a lot more lateral rigidity.

 

[SylentK]

sylentK, how many of those were SRAM parts? Just out of morbid curiousity.

Monarch(s), Pike, Reverb

I've had a lot of bad luck...

 

[mtg]

Speaking about bearings, why aren't needle bearings used in suspension applications? Axial loads?

They aren't a great solution for a mtb suspension bearing; cost would end up being higher, harder to package in the end, not as easy for field replacement, have to separately account for axial loads, etc

 

[StiHacka]

In practical usage they seem to develop play particularly in locations that don't rotate a lot

I thought needle/roller bearings were quite better for high load / limited rotation applications than ball bearings. The dual row ball bearings on Mojo HD were IMHO prime candidates for rollers/needles application. The arguments provided by @mtg & @Jm_ make sense though.

 

[HAB]

I thought needle/roller bearings were quite better for high load / limited rotation applications than ball bearings. The dual row ball bearings on Mojo HD were IMHO prime candidates for rollers/needles application. The arguments provided by @mtg & @Jm_ make sense though.

Yeah. They are good for high load/low speed applications, but for cost/packaging reasons are tough to do well on a bike.

 

[Jm_]

I think StiHacka is on to something here though, many FS bikes seemed to be designed like **** as far as rear suspension goes. I'm not talking kinematics, I'm talking engineering of the bearings, interfaces, etc.

When I look back, only my Turners were able to be ridden year after year with no slop and good lateral rigidity. There were grease ports, so ever few months I'd pump some in there, but the original bushings on my 6pack lasted until it evolved into an RFX, which was around 3-4 years at least, but I rode it hard, along with the Highline, and they both just kept ticking in that respect.

Compared to pretty much every other FS bike I've owned, where the rear end seemed to disintegrate in a season or two, either developing lots of slop, bending shock bolts, having no lateral rigidity, etc. After about a season and a half, my E29 was shot as far as bearings, slop, when I took them out they were heavily pitted, and here's the thing, the bearings don't seem like they are INTENDED to be replaced. Oh, they can, but it's obvious when you get to the chainstay where there's no lip at all and the outboard and inboard bearing sit up against the bearing hole (requires a blind puller, and even then it's a bitch and the surface gets all keyed/messed up) that the bearings aren't really intended to be replaced. The bike is intended to last about a season or two and then be thrown away IMO. Now, you can change the bearings, like I did, but it's a major PITA. I spoke to Turner at length about this and obviously, the carbon RFX with the angular contact bearings is a bit of an experiment for me, but Dave assured me that they designed the bearings in the linkages (rather than the frame) for this reason, so they are easy to remove/replace, relatively, in addition to the other features of these specific bearings.

My Foes and Azonic were pretty big "WTFs?" in the linkage department, using long bolts that would easily bend. Everything else about the Azonic design (except the suspension action) seemed pretty good though, so it was strange that this glaring problem would be present. The Azonic was just a POS wanna-be Turner 6pack before they introduced the 6pack. There's a reason for 3d linkages and the bushings. Azonic pivots developed play in no time and it was a never-ending game of shimming the shock mounts due to the ovalization that had occurred with the bent bolts. Those are just two bikes, but I could really sit here and explain how nearly ever other bike I owned had serious suspension issues after some time had passed.

In practice, it's less about the actual type of bearings used, but the execution IMO. Do they have grease ports? Are they easily removable? Do they have good lateral rigidity? It seems with a lot of bikes that this area is still woefully under-designed.

 

[jonKranked]

I think StiHacka is on to something here though, many FS bikes seemed to be designed like **** as far as rear suspension goes. I'm not talking kinematics, I'm talking engineering of the bearings, interfaces, etc.

When I look back, only my Turners were able to be ridden year after year with no slop and good lateral rigidity. There were grease ports, so ever few months I'd pump some in there, but the original bushings on my 6pack lasted until it evolved into an RFX, which was around 3-4 years at least, but I rode it hard, along with the Highline, and they both just kept ticking in that respect.

Compared to pretty much every other FS bike I've owned, where the rear end seemed to disintegrate in a season or two, either developing lots of slop, bending shock bolts, having no lateral rigidity, etc. After about a season and a half, my E29 was shot as far as bearings, slop, when I took them out they were heavily pitted, and here's the thing, the bearings don't seem like they are INTENDED to be replaced. Oh, they can, but it's obvious when you get to the chainstay where there's no lip at all and the outboard and inboard bearing sit up against the bearing hole (requires a blind puller, and even then it's a bitch and the surface gets all keyed/messed up) that the bearings aren't really intended to be replaced. The bike is intended to last about a season or two and then be thrown away IMO. Now, you can change the bearings, like I did, but it's a major PITA. I spoke to Turner at length about this and obviously, the carbon RFX with the angular contact bearings is a bit of an experiment for me, but Dave assured me that they designed the bearings in the linkages (rather than the frame) for this reason, so they are easy to remove/replace, relatively, in addition to the other features of these specific bearings.

My Foes and Azonic were pretty big "WTFs?" in the linkage department, using long bolts that would easily bend. Everything else about the Azonic design (except the suspension action) seemed pretty good though, so it was strange that this glaring problem would be present. The Azonic was just a POS wanna-be Turner 6pack before they introduced the 6pack. There's a reason for 3d linkages and the bushings. Azonic pivots developed play in no time and it was a never-ending game of shimming the shock mounts due to the ovalization that had occurred with the bent bolts. Those are just two bikes, but I could really sit here and explain how nearly ever other bike I owned had serious suspension issues after some time had passed.

In practice, it's less about the actual type of bearings used, but the execution IMO. Do they have grease ports? Are they easily removable? Do they have good lateral rigidity? It seems with a lot of bikes that this area is still woefully under-designed.

re: pivots/bearings/bushings - not sure long term reliability and longevity are high on the list of design criteria for many companies these days.


re: azonic - which frame are you referring to? i know some of their FS frames were just catalog bikes so theres that.

 

[dump]

re: pivots/bearings/bushings - not sure long term reliability and longevity are high on the list of design criteria for many companies these days .

I can assure you the business models of most require you to buy a new frame every few years. If that doesn't work, new incompatible standards will assure you have little choice.

Next up, 12 spd!

 

[jonKranked]

I can assure you the business models of most require you to buy a new frame every few years. If that doesn't work, new incompatible standards will assure you have little choice.

is this just speculation or do you have proof? not that i'm arguing against your point, its just frustrating and is turning the sport into a money pit, which in turn can lead to people not sticking with the sport.

Next up, 12 spd!

careful there, we're still on media blackout. i don't wanna get eaten by the lizard people.

 

[Jm_]

re: pivots/bearings/bushings - not sure long term reliability and longevity are high on the list of design criteria for many companies these days.


re: azonic - which frame are you referring to? i know some of their FS frames were just catalog bikes so theres that.

Yeah, that's the point. Give me simple well designed single pivot like my Highline over any hyper designed modern FS bike where the pivots are an afterthought.

 

[dump]

is this just speculation or do you have proof? not that i'm arguing against your point, its just frustrating and is turning the sport into a money pit, which in turn can lead to people not sticking with the sport.

I have no hard proof, it's just speculation based on what is largely anecdotal evidence/output... but I think you know what I'm referring to. It's that perhaps with a side of incompetence.

I'm about to send my thompson dropper post back for service after just servicing it last year... and by servicing it, they just gave me a brand new one - wtf. I think I rode this new one about 10-15 times last year! The first version I had lasted 2 years... this one, 10 rides, no crashes.

Yeah, people leaving the sport but also not joining... mtb are f-in' expensive. We like to make fun of dentists and dentist bikes, but look around... they're all dentist bikes...

 

[dump]

meanwhile, Turner switched to roller bearings and makes all carbon mtbs made in asia.

 

[jonKranked]

I have no hard proof, it's just speculation based on what is largely anecdotal evidence/output... but I think you know what I'm referring to. It's that perhaps with a side of incompetence.

i'm with you 100%, but it's one thing to for us to sit here and speculate, totally different ball game if we could prove that bikes are being deliberately designed to only last X number of years.

 

[4130biker]

i'm with you 100%, but it's one thing to for us to sit here and speculate, totally different ball game if we could prove that bikes are being deliberately designed to only last X number of years.

It's not totally irrational on their part if they are... people sell high end bikes after one season these days, and that it's that's market they need to satisfy, not second hand, unfortunately.

 

[jonKranked]

It's not totally irrational on their part if they are... people sell high end bikes after one season these days, and that it's that's market they need to satisfy, not second hand, unfortunately.

the point i'm trying to get to is that it's one thing to not design a bike to last a long time, but it's something totally different to deliberately design to to fail after x amount of time.

 

[dump]

i'm with you 100%, but it's one thing to for us to sit here and speculate, totally different ball game if we could prove that bikes are being deliberately designed to only last X number of years.

Every properly engineered part is designed for a particular fatigue life... n cycles... and that # is based on characteristic usage over some time period. It's how they know how strong to make the part... or what tradeoffs will be made based on the desire for lightness, etc. We're not going to get that # from manufactures willingly.

In a design course in university, our prof (and ex-GM engineer) said in his day they designed parts to last 5-years. That corresponded with the average ownership of a car by the original owner. The thinking was, that's all they needed the part to last, so calculate your numbers around that.

 

[dump]

It's not totally irrational on their part if they are... people sell high end bikes after one season these days, and that it's that's market they need to satisfy, not second hand, unfortunately.

Of course it's not irrational, it's how some folks do business. It just means that bikes today are largely disposable. Meanwhile, I'm still riding my 2005 sov happily

 

[jonKranked]

Every properly engineered part is designed for a particular fatigue life... n cycles... and that # is based on characteristic usage over some time period. It's how they know how strong to make the part... or what tradeoffs will be made based on the desire for lightness, etc. We're not going to get that # from manufactures willingly.

In a design course in university, our prof (and ex-GM engineer) said in his day they designed parts to last 5-years. That corresponded with the average ownership of a car by the original owner. The thinking was, that's all they needed the part to last, so calculate your numbers around that.

no i know about all that. consider what i bolded in the context of the bike industry.

 

[Jm_]

meanwhile, Turner switched to roller bearings and makes all carbon mtbs made in asia.

Welcome to 6 posts ago.

 

[Jm_]

There was a time in the late 90s when most mainstream bikes switched over from bushings to bearings. Admittedly, most of the bushings used were pretty poor. At that time, the marketing went absolutely bat-shit-nuts, proclaiming each and every day about how having bearings was superior to everything else. It seems like this push went over the top and apart from putting the skateboard-bearings in bikes, the development largely stopped, as it was "good enough" and with enough hard work they *could* usually be replaced. It became a "it has electrolytes" thing in terms of "it has bearings". For too long this area of the bike has been under-developed on the whole. I remember the Scott Gambler I rented over the summer. Holy shit, how did they ever expect that madness to work without slop? (kind of why I rented it, because I wanted to see if it was as bad as it looked) Even a little bit of play is unacceptable.

 

[jonKranked]

There was a time in the late 90s when most mainstream bikes switched over from bushings to bearings. Admittedly, most of the bushings used were pretty poor. At that time, the marketing went absolutely bat-shit-nuts, proclaiming each and every day about how having bearings was superior to everything else. It seems like this push went over the top and apart from putting the skateboard-bearings in bikes, the development largely stopped, as it was "good enough" and with enough hard work they *could* usually be replaced. It became a "it has electrolytes" thing in terms of "it has bearings". For too long this area of the bike has been under-developed on the whole. I remember the Scott Gambler I rented over the summer. Holy shit, how did they ever expect that madness to work without slop? (kind of why I rented it, because I wanted to see if it was as bad as it looked) Even a little bit of play is unacceptable.

Back in the 90s " tolerance" in the bike industry only referred to how much alcohol/drugs you could handle

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Every properly engineered part is designed for a particular fatigue life... n cycles... and that # is based on characteristic usage over some time period. It's how they know how strong to make the part... or what tradeoffs will be made based on the desire for lightness, etc. We're not going to get that # from manufactures willingly.

In a design course in university, our prof (and ex-GM engineer) said in his day they designed parts to last 5-years. That corresponded with the average ownership of a car by the original owner. The thinking was, that's all they needed the part to last, so calculate your numbers around that.

Properly engineered means different things. My transition from designing for the Space Shuttle to running a production line for minicomputer power supplies was somewhat of a shocker: What the hell do you mean you never did a worst case component tolerance analysis?

People who go into design of mountain bikes go into the trade, I suspect, because they suffer from a passion for bikes. It's not like the companies are able to pay top salaries in the evanescent period before they go bankrupt. I doubt very seriously that anyone calculates an expected service life for any component.

I always liked single pivot rear suspensions because of their simplicity. Two of the three bikes of that design that I rode had roller bearings in the pivot that tended to brinnel oh, two months after they were put in service. Despite the notchy bearings, the bikes worked fine for me until the frames fatigued and broke. The third, a 2007 Santa Cruz heckler, chose to break in other places, but the pivot bearings stayed happy.

A tune up, plus some time for disassembly and packing, for my T275 just set me back $457. Cough, choke, hack. Yeah, we're all riding dentist bikes now.

 

[kidwoo]

meanwhile, Turner switched to roller bearings and makes all carbon mtbs made in asia.

Bitches gotta pay da rent!

You should see a carbon turner frame in person. Or even better ride one. You can gripe about geometry and suspension kinematics (and I do) but one thing that will get you laughed at (by me) is to try and equate it to most of the other carbon frames being made for the same price.

As far as the bushings go, I had one bike from them with them. It was a pain the ass to get them to work right.

They used steel bearings in their dh bikes for a reason in my mind.

 

[kidwoo]

My transition from designing for the Space Shuttle

Oh god......it all makes sense now. The recycled urine......all of it.

 

[HAB]

You should see a carbon turner frame in person. Or even better ride one. You can gripe about geometry and suspension kinematics (and I do) but one thing that will get you laughed at (by me) is to try and equate it to most of the other carbon frames being made for the same price.

Really that good? I mean, I've got a DHR. I know how well made theirs shit usually is.

The geometry on the RFX is still dumb.

 

[kidwoo]

They're kinda beautiful n' shit.

And hands down the stiffest trail bike I've ever ridden. Like not even a question really.

I gotta guess there's a reason it took since 1873 to bring them to production. All but one of the geometry stupidities can be fixed with one simple solution.

 

[HAB]

I assume you're on a medium?

Small wheels would be a good first step, but I still wish it had shorter stays, and a longer reach for a given size. I could go up to an XL, but I don't really want the higher stack or longer seat tube that comes with it.

 

[kidwoo]

I wouldn't worry about the seat tubes. I've got like 6 inches sticking out of my medium with a 6" dropper. Those things are stupid short in the seat tubes. The xls just look ugly as shit though.

If you think you could get your bars low enough with the stack meas, hey.....stiffer interface with less exposed steerer


The chainstays though.......yeah.......it's kind of a thing. Not a good one.

 

[HAB]

Aesthetics definitely trump fit when picking a size.

Seriously though, you've seen the bar/stem setup I have on my MT, right? I honestly might not be able to get them low enough on an XL.

 

[ianjenn]

It's stiffer than the MEGA?

 

[kidwoo]

It's stiffer than the MEGA?

What did I just say!!??? What did I JUST tell you?? It's like farting upstream in here sometimes!




I think the material differences are a lot of it, each is done very well in their respective media. The MT is certainly no slouch. The RFX just feels like a carbon v10 laterally. It's kind of crazy. If anything though, I do admit I haven't ridden every plastic bike out there.......but I've ridden a fair number.

HAB: I have seen your aero setups. Have you considered tomac drop bars? It will make an entire generation of bikers in their 40s and 40s respect you for being 'wild' and 'out there'. Win win really.

 

[Udi]

Speaking about bearings, why aren't needle bearings used in suspension applications? Axial loads?

They just fail from a practical standpoint in an MTB - sometimes they require separate race/s, are substantially more expensive than radial cartridge bearings, are more sensitive to water intrusion (partially because they are harder to seal), and require separate mechanisms for axial load handling as you and mtg point out. Angular contact needle bearings can offer some axial support, but then you need complicated preload mechanisms etc.

I've never had an issue with radial cartridge bearings in MTB frames when they are sized and implemented properly. When that's done right, they seem to last a long time, rarely develop play, are pretty easy to replace, and only damage themselves if you leave it too long (clearly Jm had a frame where there were issues in the sizing and design phase).

I don't mind greaseports, but once you factor in the weight and complexity increase, I think it's sometimes better to just spec a slightly bigger radial bearing if possible.