Quantcast

2015 Kona Operator

Dirk77

Monkey
Feb 15, 2014
233
48
Oh Hells Ya.. they need a black/chrome color scheme. Or the bullet wrap graphic off the proto type frame.
 

jackalope

Mental acuity - 1%
Jan 9, 2004
7,596
5,894
in a single wide, cooking meth...
So given what Hugh said in the Yeti thread:

The fact is that if a bike has a conventional drivetrain, then its axle path (and the way the wheel reacts to 'small bumps' and 'square edge bumps') is going to be pretty similar to other bikes.
Any noticeable difference between Bike A and Bike B in the way they handle square edge bumps has a lot more to do with leverage ratio and shock tune than anything else.
Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference compared to say a Devinci Wilson?
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,031
5,921
borcester rhymes
So given what Hugh said in the Yeti thread:



Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference compared to say a Devinci Wilson?
yes, because it has a huge effect on anti-squat and pedaling characteristics. Given that this is a downhill bike only, you can get away with even higher anti-squat percentages as you will usually be traveling at such a speed that even 200% AS is not going to be noticeable at the pedals. The pivot is in a good spot to taper off AS% as you get deeper into travel, so it shouldn't even be a problem at bottom out. The wilson's pivot is already in a good spot to balance pedaling performance.
 

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,346
1,587
Warsaw :/
So given what Hugh said in the Yeti thread:



Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference compared to say a Devinci Wilson?
Unless you are half paralyzed and you don't know what's happening with your bike then yes. Maybe the difference is lesser with smaller travel bikes but for dh bikes just find 2 bikes with reasonably similar leverage and different axle path and see for yourself. It may be placebo but I noticed a big difference.


Also Kudos for no stupid wheelsize.
 

jackalope

Mental acuity - 1%
Jan 9, 2004
7,596
5,894
in a single wide, cooking meth...
Well no wonder I've pissing all over myself and can't get out of my chair!

But humor me, how would *you* summarize Hugh's comments:

For non-pedalling situtations (on a bike with a conventional drivetrain), I think axle path is not noticeable.....

The fact is that if a bike has a conventional drivetrain, then its axle path (and the way the wheel reacts to 'small bumps' and 'square edge bumps') is going to be pretty similar to other bikes.
Any noticeable difference between Bike A and Bike B in the way they handle square edge bumps has a lot more to do with leverage ratio and shock tune than anything else.
Now I do think there can be appreciable differences in pedaling performance, but to use the example Hugh posted, an 11 mm difference in axle path doesn't seem to have a substantial impact on gnar-smashing performance.
 

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,346
1,587
Warsaw :/
Well no wonder I've pissing all over myself and can't get out of my chair!

But humor me, how would *you* summarize Hugh's comments:



Now I do think there can be appreciable differences in pedaling performance, but to use the example Hugh posted, an 11 mm difference in axle path doesn't seem to have a substantial impact on gnar-smashing performance.

But it doesn't seem to have because... ? I see no proof to that theory. What I feel on bikes may be placebo so I'm open to any arguments but I'd really like to see why there is no difference between a bike with 13mm rearward travel and a bike with 2mm of rearward travel. If that's the case that's great, I just want to see the facts behind it.
 

Vrock

Linkage Design Blog
Aug 13, 2005
276
59
Spain
Hugh designs bikes with 80-100mm of rearward travel, so 10mm seems like nothing. Maybe you can tell the difference or maybe not, it's really hard to say, but I agree with him in that you are probably noticing differences in the shock or in the leverage ratio.
 

Dirk77

Monkey
Feb 15, 2014
233
48
What you guys think of running the new 2015 Fox 36 180mm on the carbon operator? I'm thinking it would be great for bike park stuff. It'd be crazy light.
 

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
Now assuming such impossibilities as having the same size and feel in the cockpit, I wonder if a single person here would have a different time down the track with this bike compared to whatever e-engineered mastubike they chose. Like, back to back down the same course.
 

Dirk77

Monkey
Feb 15, 2014
233
48
I wouldn't mind travel difference, i wouldn't want to change the geo.
 
Last edited:

kickstand

Turbo Monkey
Sep 18, 2009
3,441
392
Fenton, MI
Now assuming such impossibilities as having the same size and feel in the cockpit, I wonder if a single person here would have a different time down the track with this bike compared to whatever e-engineered mastubike they chose. Like, back to back down the same course.

Different maybe, but not drastically different. I have a buddy with a Carbon Operator and he hauls ass. The feel good in the "parking lot" test too.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
I wouldn't mind travel difference, i wouldn't want to change the geo.
Most 180 single crowns have a very similar A-C measurement as 200mm duals since the crown itself has to be beefier on the single. I haven't looked at the 'new' fox 36s but they should be close.

Most people don't seem to realize you realistically end up with a bike that rides a little slacker with a 180mm single crown since 30-ish% sag on less travel keeps the front end higher up. You don't need to fvck with shortening the travel on the rear end.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
So given what Hugh said in the Yeti thread:
Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference
I tend to agree with Sandwich, while it may not have a huge impact on bump absorption, there are acceleration benefits to be had due to a greater impact on the AS curve. Not sure about "200% not being noticeable at the pedals" but I suspect that number may be quoted with some linkage inaccuracies included - if it's referencing the bike I'm thinking of then it feels fine to me - though I suspect the factual value is lower.

There is also some effect on bump absorption - and while I agree that the differences between low to mid pivots are small - I wouldn't let that blur the fact that there is indeed some advantage, and to use norbar's example of an 11mm x-variation, I think to a moderately sensitive rider, that amount is noticeable. With all else being equal, I'd pick the Wilson over the Operator (and the Gambler over the Wilson :)) for this reason.

That said, LR curve does have a much bigger influence on bump absorption on bikes with more conventional axle paths. I think the benefit of employing a ~4" main pivot height (on a DH bike) is to allow a more linear, more predictable leverage curve for a given level of bump absorption - while making calculated sacrifices in less important areas like pedal feedback and squat curves.

I also think there are negatives to hugely rearward axle paths, primarily large forward shifts in rider COM with travel use, as well as far greater variations in rear wheel normal force (thus traction, thus predictability). These are key points that proponents of high pivots don't publicise.
 

RayB

Monkey
Jan 31, 2008
744
95
Seattle
Most 180 single crowns have a very similar A-C measurement as 200mm duals since the crown itself has to be beefier on the single. I haven't looked at the 'new' fox 36s but they should be close.

Most people don't seem to realize you realistically end up with a bike that rides a little slacker with a 180mm single crown since 30-ish% sag on less travel keeps the front end higher up. You don't need to fvck with shortening the travel on the rear end.
Unfortunately, the 180mm Fox forks have the same A2C as their 160mm variety. Pretty sure this will fux the geometry up a tad. YMMV?
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
I think 570 is round abouts where most dc 8" forks end up. With the 180mm singles being maybe 5mm shy (speaking generally here).

So yeah, everyone thinking the front of your bike somehow gets lower just because there's less travel is a little off. If anything it's going to ride higher.
 

jackalope

Mental acuity - 1%
Jan 9, 2004
7,596
5,894
in a single wide, cooking meth...
Last edited:

Samoto

Guest
Dec 16, 2013
402
0
Transition looks like Banshee company. sweet design of frame!
 
Last edited:

mtg

Green with Envy
Sep 21, 2009
1,862
1,604
Denver, CO
I think 570 is round abouts where most dc 8" forks end up. With the 180mm singles being maybe 5mm shy (speaking generally here).

So yeah, everyone thinking the front of your bike somehow gets lower just because there's less travel is a little off. If anything it's going to ride higher.
Adding some numbers...

Most 180mm single crown forks have an axle to crown of 565mm, and 200mm travel dual crowns are about 570mm-590mm or so, minimum.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Adding some numbers...

Most 180mm single crown forks have an axle to crown of 565mm, and 200mm travel dual crowns are about 570mm-590mm or so, minimum.
So yeah if you slam your dc fork down (most people I know do), there's really not much difference. I used to switch around my dh forks with a 36 and totem forks on my 7" bikes whenever one of them wasn't working and I wanted to ride it. Ain't no thang.
 

mtg

Green with Envy
Sep 21, 2009
1,862
1,604
Denver, CO
So yeah if you slam your dc fork down (most people I know do), there's really not much difference. I used to switch around my dh forks with a 36 and totem forks on my 7" bikes whenever one of them wasn't working and I wanted to ride it. Ain't no thang.
Yep, and since the single crown probably has a tapered steerer vs the 1 1/8" on dual crowns, the headset height usually adds another 10mm or so.
 

4130biker

PM me about Tantrum Cycles!
May 24, 2007
3,882
447

no skid marks

Monkey
Jan 15, 2006
2,511
29
ACT Australia
I also think there are negatives to hugely rearward axle paths, primarily large forward shifts in rider COM with travel use, as well as far greater variations in rear wheel normal force (thus traction, thus predictability). These are key points that proponents of high pivots don't publicise.
Doesn't take many runs for your subconscious to put your body weight further back to cater to any minute shift in COG.
Traction is best when the rear wheel is on the ground more, something more rearward axle path allows, with your theorizing, they also better front wheel traction. and are very predictable thanks to wheel base staying the same or lengthening when bike mostly needs it, when bottomed out.
I'd say off camber corners whilst braking is the only place a new rider of a rearward axle path bike would have any issues with rear tyre traction.
Damping and leverage curves etc aside, the rider would still most likely be faster down the hill on the more rearward axle path bike. This is what I've found, not just theorized. Most manufacturers are running as high a pivot as they can without resorting to running an idler. Not sure what Konas on. Should've just slapped an idler on the original Stabs pivot heigh, dialed the leverage curve and lightened the frames(maybe not as much as they did) and ditched the idler like they did.
Maybe Kona should reintroduce the Horst Link too, and mess with axle paths etc that way.
 
Last edited:

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,031
5,921
borcester rhymes
I tend to agree with Sandwich, while it may not have a huge impact on bump absorption, there are acceleration benefits to be had due to a greater impact on the AS curve. Not sure about "200% not being noticeable at the pedals" but I suspect that number may be quoted with some linkage inaccuracies included - if it's referencing the bike I'm thinking of then it feels fine to me - though I suspect the factual value is lower.
Mostly just exaggerating for effect. I think anti squat values are more critical on bikes you pedal sitting down. Bikes you stand and sprint are a bit different, and bikes you sprint at high speed even further. Having a pivot height that provides 50% anti squat isn't doing anybody any favors on a downhill bike....it's quite literally the least offensive suspension design you can make.

Doesn't take many runs for your subconscious to put your body weight further back. Traction is best when the rear wheel is on the ground more, something more rearward axle path allows. Front wheel traction is more of a concern IMO. Something rearward axle paths don't have issues with.
I'd say off camber corners whilst braking is the only place an inexperienced rearward axle path bike rider would have any issues with traction. Damping and leverage curves etc aside, the rider would still most likely be faster down the hill on the more rearward axle path bike. This is what I've found, not just theorized. Most manufacturers are running as high a pivot as they can without resorting to running an idler. Not sure what Konas on. Should've just slapped an idler on the original Stabs pivot heigh, dialed the leverage curve and lightened the frames(maybe not as much as they did) and ditched the idler like they did.
Maybe Kona should reintroduce the Horst Link too, and mess with axle paths etc that way.
wat