Things you would like to see from bicycle manufacturers

hmcleay · Oct 17, 2012

saruti said:
What do you want to see in bicycle manufacturers web sites?

I'd like to see more honesty when it comes to explaining the technical benefits of their design(s).
I'm sure most engineers behind these designs do have a good understanding of the benefits and flaws in each design. Unfortunately, by the time this info gets onto the website (via the marketing department), it usually ends up reading like a bunch of bogus claims.

I feel for the less informed consumers (probably around 90% of bike consumers), who rely on this marketing material to make a purchase, especially if they are basing their decision on technical benefits.

Here's one brand that has made an effort to avoid any bogus marketing, and are focused on describing the facts:
www.i-tracksuspension.com

I can totally appreciate that technical mumbo-jumbo isn't for everyone, but it does get me excited.

Cheers,
Hugh.

djjohnr · Oct 17, 2012

Dogboy said:
Sure, but by how much? Pretty small numbers I would imagine - like single digit mm's.

So do I but I don't think most people do.

It can be more then single digit mms. It gets even more complicated when the travel amount isn't the same.

The question wasn't "what do you think most people want to see from manufacturers", it was what do YOU want to see.

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

saddle this in the gearbox realm but I'd really really really like to see someone figure out a new tire system that doesn't involve tires and tubes in the range of pounds as far as weight. We finally got them to work worth a damn in terms of treads and compounds, why are we still using a system that's almost a century old? A bomber lighweight tubeless setup shouldn't be that hard.

4130biker · Oct 18, 2012

Dogboy said:
Sure, but by how much? Pretty small numbers I would imagine - like single digit mm's. So do I but I don't think most people do.

Ok, so which is right, bb height measurement/ difference or the shock sag based in total stroke?
Ive heard both- but I guess the real question is: what standard does a particular manufacturer subscribe to when specifying sag?

hmcleay · Oct 18, 2012

4130biker said:
Ok, so which is right, bb height measurement/ difference or the shock sag based in total stroke?
Ive heard both- but I guess the real question is: what standard does a particular manufacturer subscribe to when specifying sag?

^^^ Good question.
I have always considered vertical wheel travel to be the basis of all 'travel sensitive' measurements. So I would consider 30% sag to mean 30% of the way through the available vertical wheel travel.
And 'vertical' would be defined as being perpendicular to a line through the axles, when the bike is in the fully extended position.

The trouble is, it's easier to work out your recommended sag if it's based on shock displacement rather than vertical wheel travel (much easier to measure).

dhr-racer · Oct 18, 2012

hmcleay said:
^^^ Good question.
I have always considered vertical wheel travel to be the basis of all 'travel sensitive' measurements. So I would consider 30% sag to mean 30% of the way through the available vertical wheel travel.
And 'vertical' would be defined as being perpendicular to a line through the axles, when the bike is in the fully extended position.

The trouble is, it's easier to work out your recommended sag if it's based on shock displacement rather than vertical wheel travel (much easier to measure).

You take your solidly formed idea's and concepts, and you get out! there's no room for that business here!

gemini2k · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
saddle this in the gearbox realm but I'd really really really like to see someone figure out a new tire system that doesn't involve tires and tubes in the range of pounds as far as weight. We finally got them to work worth a damn in terms of treads and compounds, why are we still using a system that's almost a century old? A bomber lighweight tubeless setup shouldn't be that hard.

I think this is the holy grail of future DH technology improvements. Nothing would make as big of a difference as dropping a pound or more off of each tire. Suddenly DH bikes would become easy to pedal.

Dogboy · Oct 18, 2012

gurp said:
The question wasn't "what do you think most people want to see from manufacturers", it was what do YOU want to see.

Fair enough. :cheers:

ritche · Oct 18, 2012

I want to see carbonz DW sunday dh frame with updated geo

Pslide · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
saddle this in the gearbox realm but I'd really really really like to see someone figure out a new tire system that doesn't involve tires and tubes in the range of pounds as far as weight. We finally got them to work worth a damn in terms of treads and compounds, why are we still using a system that's almost a century old? A bomber lighweight tubeless setup shouldn't be that hard.

Drew this up about a year ago. It's my idea for a beadlock system.

- Uses existing tires, no tubes, and a special rim and internal bead lock.
- Locks the tire bead to the rim, no burping
- Reinforces lower sidewall of tire for less tire deformation in hard cornering
- Eliminate pinch flats
- Stronger rim shape, less rock dings, might be able to make lighter than current rims too

The bead lock, which is the cross hatched portion inside the tire, is a lightweight plastic. It is locked by a central cable system (not shown) that can be loosened or tightened similar to those fancy shoes with the tiny shoelaces that you tighten by twisting a knob. In this case, the tiny cable travels around the rim and is wound around a special valve stem assembly, by turning the valve stem you would loosen/tighten the cable system threaded through the bead lock. It would take some engineering to work it out so that it could be loosened enough to easily mount tires and tighten enough to secure the bead lock.

(proportions are not quite right in my sketch)

slyfink · Oct 18, 2012

jackalope said:
Definitely would like to see geo at sag as mentioned above, as well as more 26/650b options like the new Banshee Spitfire offers.

And not frame related, but it'd be great to see a lot more 140-150mm SC forks with 34-36mm stanchions with a 20mm axel.

... and moar gear box bikes, both DH and 160mm AM rigs...

dump · Oct 18, 2012

Pslide said:

That's a neat idea. Rather than have the sides of the beadlock tapered and applying downward pressure, I would make it so that it fits rigidly and locks into place between the two beads preventing them from moving inwards off the bead hook (then up and out). It's probably possible to work up a demo of this with relative ease.

Electric_City · Oct 18, 2012

Dogboy said:
To the guys whinging about standards, I wish you had to ride a bike with cantilever brakes, a 1" threaded steerer tubed fork, a 68mm square taper BB, 130mm rear hub spacing, toe clips, thumb shifters, and a 25.4mm seatpost.

I rode the bikes you're talking about. But standards need to be set.

Bb's for example- 68,73, 83,100mm shells
Don't even get me started on the spindle lengths
Square taper, Octalink, ISIS, external
Truvativ, Shimano (Raceface)
Bb90, bb91, or other new ones
English, French, Italian threads
How many spacers and on what side

Our shop still has 1 1/4" headsets from 1995 when we sold Jamis. They eventually went to the standard 1 1/8" hs. 2 threaded, one threadless.

We're at an age where there's no reason that all mtn bikes can't have a 31.6" seat post.

A buddy broke a fuel ex that was 2yrs old. He needed a new headset cause the old one wasn't tapered. A new bb and crank cause the 3yr old lx crank with Octalink that he had wouldn't work. It requires a pressed bb. It also required a call to Trek to send the 135mm dropouts instead of the 142's that it came with. Even though we had an adapter kit from Trek that said it was for the bb90, it didn't work on the 2012 model fuel. Why not?

I definitely agree with trying new things, but I really wish the industry got together at interbike and sat down to discuss a standard to follow. Ya know?

iRider · Oct 18, 2012

Electric_City said:
I definitely agree with trying new things, but I really wish the industry got together at interbike and sat down to discuss a standard to follow. Ya know?

Why? Those guys: http://problemsolversbike.com/

go

everytime a bike company introduces a new 'standard'.

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

Pslide said:
Drew this up about a year ago. It's my idea for a beadlock system.

Looks pretty interesting. Still doesn't drop the weight though since you'd be adding material while taking away the tube and using existing tires. Might at least go towards solving the tube thing for sure though.

We need a new tire reinforcement material in the casings. Something lighter and pretty much impenetrable as just a layer in there somewhere.

slyfink · Oct 18, 2012

the concept sort of reminds me of tubulars, except with a mechanical way of securing the tire to the rim. What if you had an I-beam type section built into a fully tubular tire? the rims could be much lighter because no sidewalls would be needed. and instead of an innertube sewn into a tire, the tire would be "tubeless ready" and sealed with stans?

Dogboy · Oct 18, 2012

Something like this needs to be adapted for DH use - http://tubliss.com/

Pslide, I really like your idea of a BOA-type mechanism to allow for installation/removal.

Pslide · Oct 18, 2012

Dogboy said:
Something like this needs to be adapted for DH use - http://tubliss.com/

Pslide, I really like your idea of a BOA-type mechanism to allow for installation/removal.

Cheers.

Had never seen that Tubliss system you linked...I think that would accomplish what Dump is thinking above...good idea actually, and works with existing rims. Wouldn't save that much weight over a tire+tube, but would solve some of the problems with tubeless.

Part of my idea was to get rid of the rim sidewalls like slyfink was talking about for lower weight and a stronger rim, and also provide some additional tire support in the lower sidewall so that you could run a EXO/SX casing instead of 2 ply. That would save a lot of weight. But I think you'd still need 2 ply for rocks and top level racing...I don't think 1 ply casing can cut it when you're really pushing it. I guess that's why we need an advancement in materials to lighten up 2 ply casings like Kidwoo is talking.

Pslide · Oct 18, 2012

slyfink said:
the concept sort of reminds me of tubulars, except with a mechanical way of securing the tire to the rim. What if you had an I-beam type section built into a fully tubular tire? the rims could be much lighter because no sidewalls would be needed. and instead of an innertube sewn into a tire, the tire would be "tubeless ready" and sealed with stans?

You might have to sketch that one out...not sure I'm following!

4130biker · Oct 18, 2012

Everyone listing BB heights instead of "+__mm" from center line of axles.

PS- Anyone have a quick frame of reference off the top of their head for that- maybe a demo 8 with 2.5 minions is a "+__mm" bottom bracket height, for instance?

Just a little thing I'm finding a bit annoying while comparing frame specs right now..

Wa-Aw · Oct 18, 2012

Bring back the Marzocchi Bomber girls, at least the posters anyway. 90% less stiction! (how the fvck do you spell that word??)

'size · Oct 18, 2012

i swear i read a few years ago that the tubliss guys were supposed to be working on an mtb version. or maybe someone in the mtb world was working on a very similar type of system...

UiUiUiUi · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
saddle this in the gearbox realm but I'd really really really like to see someone figure out a new tire system that doesn't involve tires and tubes in the range of pounds as far as weight. We finally got them to work worth a damn in terms of treads and compounds, why are we still using a system that's almost a century old? A bomber lighweight tubeless setup shouldn't be that hard.

something like the michelin tweel concept would be fun... no more air needed

http://www.evworld.com/images/tweel_centaur.jpg

obviously has to be modified for use on bikes... ^^

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

Pslide said:
Cheers.

Had never seen that Tubliss system you linked...I think that would accomplish what Dump is thinking above...good idea actually, and works with existing rims. Wouldn't save that much weight over a tire+tube, but would solve some of the problems with tubeless.

Part of my idea was to get rid of the rim sidewalls like slyfink was talking about for lower weight and a stronger rim, and also provide some additional tire support in the lower sidewall so that you could run a EXO/SX casing instead of 2 ply. That would save a lot of weight. But I think you'd still need 2 ply for rocks and top level racing...I don't think 1 ply casing can cut it when you're really pushing it. I guess that's why we need an advancement in materials to lighten up 2 ply casings like Kidwoo is talking.

The biggest advantage to me in you setup should be that burping tires would go away. That's at least 50% of the reason I don't run tubeless on my dh bike.

yd35 · Oct 18, 2012

Wa-Aw said:
Bring back the Marzocchi Bomber girls, at least the posters anyway. 90% less stiction! (how the fvck do you spell that word??)

Wouldn't that lead to more stiction?

slyfink · Oct 18, 2012

Pslide said:
You might have to sketch that one out...not sure I'm following!

I'm no artist... but here's my attempt:

there's lots of issues with this concept of course, like how do you get that i-beam in the slot in the rim, but I think people smarter than me could figure that out. or maybe adapt that boa concept to this somehow...

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

slyfink said:
I'm no artist... but here's my attempt:

View attachment 112361

there's lots of issues with this concept of course, like how do you get that i-beam in the slot in the rim, but I think people smarter than me could figure that out. or maybe adapt that boa concept to this somehow...

That kind of looks like a lateral rolling nightmare.

norbar · Oct 18, 2012

4130biker said:
Everyone listing BB heights instead of "+__mm" from center line of axles.

PS- Anyone have a quick frame of reference off the top of their head for that- maybe a demo 8 with 2.5 minions is a "+__mm" bottom bracket height, for instance?

Just a little thing I'm finding a bit annoying while comparing frame specs right now..

That and the "you can build it at 40lbs" is one of the most annoying pieces of misinformation in the market. A bit like inventing your own snowboard base names (though spesh does that with alu)

boogenman · Oct 18, 2012

I would like to see more shocks and forks with adjustments I like and need(low speed compression and rebound) not some ****ty platform crap or stuff for complete retards. This is more for non DH stuff.

slyfink · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
That kind of looks like a lateral rolling nightmare.

I agree. but somehow they seem to make it work with tubulars right? Maybe a narrower tire with a wider rim? I used an espresso cup to trace the tire, so you wouldn't want something quite that round in the real world... I was just thinking off the top of my head to see if you could merge dump's idea with the i-beam idea and the tubular idea... using elements of all three to come up with something better than what we have now. of course, it could just be a plainly bad idea. lord knows I've had plenty of those (and have the [emotional and physical]scars to prove it !)

OGRipper · Oct 18, 2012

slyfink said:
I'm no artist... but here's my attempt:

View attachment 112361

there's lots of issues with this concept of course, like how do you get that i-beam in the slot in the rim, but I think people smarter than me could figure that out. or maybe adapt that boa concept to this somehow...

Interesting. Makes me wonder if there is a way to create a locking, i-beam type interface for a dual bead tire. Seems like that would solve burping issues AND use less material, so it would be lighter. No idea how to install it though. Maybe a removal chip in the rim sidewall so you can thread the tire in?

Sandwich · Oct 18, 2012

norbar said:
That and the "you can build it at 40lbs" is one of the most annoying pieces of misinformation in the market. A bit like inventing your own snowboard base names (though spesh does that with alu)

used to be that people actually cared what their frame was made out of. 4130, supertherm, ox platinum, 7005, 6061...now it's "steel" "aluminum" and "carbon".

norbar · Oct 18, 2012

Sandwich said:
used to be that people actually cared what their frame was made out of. 4130, supertherm, ox platinum, 7005, 6061...now it's "steel" "aluminum" and "carbon".

a5 or a6 premium alu or what was it spesh used? Also yeah. Though they still give you parts material.

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

slyfink said:
I agree. but somehow they seem to make it work with tubulars right? Maybe a narrower tire with a wider rim? I used an espresso cup to trace the tire, so you wouldn't want something quite that round in the real world... I was just thinking off the top of my head to see if you could merge dump's idea with the i-beam idea and the tubular idea... using elements of all three to come up with something better than what we have now. of course, it could just be a plainly bad idea. lord knows I've had plenty of those (and have the [emotional and physical]scars to prove it !)

We just need to remember that wide rims DO serve a purpose in supporting the tire and letting it expand into a more squarish profile. It seems like the sew up things maxxis had floating around on minnaar's bike would work. You keep the wide, supported footprint available with a wide rim and there's not a whole lot of extra material needed to span the thing bead to bead.

I'm picturing something like that and some of those old flat T.H.E. rims. A setup like that with a burlier, lighter tire and we're there! Where's polymer wizard johnkranked when you need him?

demo 9 · Oct 18, 2012

What about a low profile tire, like the race-cars use. minimum sidewall and run a "foam" instead of a tube, no flats, no "peeling"

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

Race car tires don't lean at 30 degrees to turn.

ALEXIS_DH · Oct 18, 2012

demo 9 said:
What about a low profile tire, like the race-cars use. minimum sidewall and run a "foam" instead of a tube, no flats, no "peeling"

i want spoilers and ground effects.

demo 9 · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
Race car tires don't lean at 30 degrees to turn.

no, but couldnt that easily be altered with a different shape for a tire? make bike tires more round? (or whatever ideal shape they would need with a low profile)

Its not uncommon to start to peel a tire off in tight stuff, more-so if you run tubeless

kidwoo · Oct 18, 2012

demo 9 said:
no, but couldnt that easily be altered with a different shape for a tire? make bike tires more round? (or whatever ideal shape they would need with a low profile)

The more 'low profile' you make a tire though, the flatter it's going to get. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by low profile.

demo 9 · Oct 18, 2012

kidwoo said:
The more 'low profile' you make a tire though, the flatter it's going to get. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by low profile.

I mean less sidewall, obviously the tire shape would have to be altered, but its why sports cars run skinny tires and why my pickup truck with big sidewalls turns like **** (and the fact that its a pickup truck i know)

something to prevent this.
http://www.vitalmtb.com/videos/features/Rapid-Fire-Kyle-Strait-Scrubbin-Jumps-and-Foldin-Knobs,14733/sspomer,2

Things you would like to see from bicycle manufacturers

i-track suspension

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

PM me about Tantrum Cycles!

i-track suspension

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Torture wrench

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

PM me about Tantrum Cycles!

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

back alley ripper

Pig my fish!

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Tirelessly Awesome

Turbo Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Turbo Monkey