Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference compared to say a Devinci Wilson?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.
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.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.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?
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.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.
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.
diggin the operators little brother. also stoked to see them keeping 26 alive.
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.
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.I wouldn't mind travel difference, i wouldn't want to change the geo.
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.So given what Hugh said in the Yeti thread:
Do you think the pivot placement in this instance makes a significant difference
Unfortunately, the 180mm Fox forks have the same A2C as their 160mm variety. Pretty sure this will fux the geometry up a tad. YMMV?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.
You sure?Unfortunately, the 180mm Fox forks have the same A2C as their 160mm variety. Pretty sure this will fux the geometry up a tad. YMMV?
fuk me thats hot
Would love to check it out, but can't find this one- link?... new Covert and switch to a chainstay rear pivot location?
Nope you're right. I derp'd.You sure?
They weren't in the past.
http://service.foxracingshox.com/consumers/Content/2013_CD_user_specs.htm
Would love to check it out, but can't find this one- link?
Adding some numbers...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.
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.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.
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.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.
I saw one of the owners of Transition riding a 125mm version of this frame w/ a 140mm Pike on the front, last weekend at silver mtn bike park.. classic design, cant go wrong i guess..
Thanks man! Was gonna just rep you and say thanks, but must spread...
moar pix
http://www.vitalmtb.com/photos/features/PIT-BITS-2014-Enduro-World-Series-Colorado-Freeride-Festival,7729/Lars-Sternbergs-Prototype-Transition-Enduro-Race-Bike,79426/sspomer,2
And I may be premature calling it an updated Covert, as it may end up being a separate bike model and name - but given the apparent geo and rear travel, it seems likely to replace the current Covert.
Doesn't take many runs for your subconscious to put your body weight further back to cater to any minute shift in COG.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.
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.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.
watDoesn'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.