Quantcast

Anyone got an Emerald review yet?

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,768
501
While the geek in me appreciates the breakdown, the basic issue there is that the expenditure requirements for pure DH riding per unit distance are not even in the same ballpark as road/XC, even on flat ground. Definitely not burning 1200 calories in 2 minutes on a DH bike.
 
Uhhh, I'm sure those "estimates" are for uphill and flat riding, not pinning it DH where you aren't pedaling NEARLY as much. So yeah...fact remains, 2 pounds on a DH bike don't mean anything. People who ACTUALLY ride their bikes, and who are ACTUALLY fast, know this.
i understand your reasoning. but i would argue that "pinning it DH" expends the same if not more because...

pinning it DH means:
1. when you're pedaling, you're sprinting (or pedaling hard)
2. when you're not pedaling, you are still using more muscle groups (core and upper body)

with your last statement, i also disagree. we are amateurs, and yes, probably could NOT tell a difference. but perhaps top amateurs and certainly top pros, (who are ACTUALLY fast) that difference IS noticeable. when a mere second separates 1st from being off the podium. A kilo may indeed make that difference.

top factory pros get custom/prototype/one-off parts that almost ALWAYS 1. saves weight, 2. enhance performance, or both.

trickling down to my amateurish speeds, 10% (for a conservative estimate) isn't splitting hairs IMHO. i was just trying to inject some semblance of objectivity to the weight argument is all.

I probably will still buy a 380 from you come spring time. ;)
 
Last edited:
Definitely not burning 1200 calories in 2 minutes on a DH bike.
maybe if you are minnaar, on your world champ race run....you would be...and that is a conservative estimate....

also bear in mind...

"Most of us think of calories in relation to food, as in "This can of soda has 200 calories." It turns out that the calories on a food package are actually kilocalories (1,000 calories = 1 kilocalorie). The word is sometimes capitalized to show the difference, but usually not. A food calorie contains 4,184 joules. A can of soda containing 200 food calories contains 200,000 regular calories, or 200 kilocalories. A gallon of gasoline contains 31,000 kilocalories. "

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/calorie1.htm
 
Last edited:

yd35

Monkey
Oct 28, 2008
741
61
NY
i understand your reasoning. but i would argue that "pinning it DH" expends the same if not more because...

pinning it DH means:
1. when you're pedaling, you're sprinting (or pedaling hard)
2. when you're not pedaling, you are still using more muscle groups (core and upper body)

with your last statement, i also disagree. we are amateurs, and yes, probably could NOT tell a difference. but perhaps top amateurs and certainly top pros, (who are ACTUALLY fast) that difference IS noticeable. when a mere second separates 1st from being off the podium. A kilo may indeed make that difference.

top factory pros get custom/prototype/one-off parts that almost ALWAYS 1. saves weight, 2. enhance performance, or both.

trickling down to my amateurish speeds, 10% (for a conservative estimate) isn't splitting hairs IMHO. i was just trying to inject some semblance of objectivity to the weight argument is all.

I probably will still buy a 380 from you come spring time. ;)
I am disappointed by this rational and mature response to you being called SLOW. ;)
 

ChrisRobin

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
3,410
212
Vancouver
I'm happy I'm not much of a weight weenie and ride for the sheer fun of it. Keeps my options open.

Threads like this are still fun to read.
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,918
1,213
Putting that much weight on overall on a DH bike, is fine. I have no issues with that. It's putting a substantial amount on one particular component, is a different story.
It would be okay if it was heavier and performed significantly better.
So far though, it's heavier than my current fork, less torsionally stiff, swaps the coil spring for air, and costs a lot more.

I'll take eight.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
average cycling (on road) energy expenditure is 0.28kcal per miles.pound. lets just double that expenditure for offroad cycling for a conservative estimate. so 0.56kcal per miles.pound

1kg = 2.2lbs, so energy expenditure is 1.2kcal/mile (for hauling around a kilo of mass)

UCI minimum DH course length is 1500meters or about 1mile (for easy math sake). thusly for that 1 mile, we expend 1.2kilocalories...or 1200 calories (for a kilogram)

top downhill mountain bikers are averaging 30miles per hr. to travel 1 mile, that would take 2mins.

1200 calories per 2 mins = 43 watts (per Kilogram)

well conditioned cyclists probably can generate 5-6watts per kilogram max in short spurts. so for an average weight of 85kg, that's 425watts

just by losing (or adding) and additional 1kg, you are losing (or gaining) 10%....which i think is significant.

so yeah, 1kg addition is probably significant and arguably noticeable.

(yes, i am bored..and nerdy)
WTF is offroad 'cycling'??

Can I shoot at it?
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,245
27,443
media blackout
#Wah

Gawd, that entire kilo is gonna be the end of you isn't it?!? Just WAY too heavy to be reasonable!! I mean, if there's an uphill section somewhere, you're OBVIOUSLY gonna be screwed.
that extra kilo is a real boner-killer for guys like cow that would rather jack it to parts on a scale than actually ride
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,245
27,443
media blackout
average cycling (on road) energy expenditure is 0.28kcal per miles.pound. lets just double that expenditure for offroad cycling for a conservative estimate. so 0.56kcal per miles.pound

1kg = 2.2lbs, so energy expenditure is 1.2kcal/mile (for hauling around a kilo of mass)

UCI minimum DH course length is 1500meters or about 1mile (for easy math sake). thusly for that 1 mile, we expend 1.2kilocalories...or 1200 calories (for a kilogram)

top downhill mountain bikers are averaging 30miles per hr. to travel 1 mile, that would take 2mins.

1200 calories per 2 mins = 43 watts (per Kilogram)

well conditioned cyclists probably can generate 5-6watts per kilogram max in short spurts. so for an average weight of 85kg, that's 425watts

just by losing (or adding) and additional 1kg, you are losing (or gaining) 10%....which i think is significant.

so yeah, 1kg addition is probably significant and arguably noticeable.

(yes, i am bored..and nerdy)
 

jackalope

Mental acuity - 1%
Jan 9, 2004
7,727
6,165
in a single wide, cooking meth...
Still shocked nobody has pointed out how the Monster green ano uppers more than make up for the extra weight and price tag with superior Hulk Smash performance. Plus, the stanchion guards even say "inverted" (in case you forget), so you know that sh!t is crazy good.
 
Last edited:

Josef

Monkey
Apr 17, 2013
108
11
If you read this thread completely you would know that the green ano adds at least 5 HP and is completely necessary. This thread sucks BTW.
 

ChrisRobin

Turbo Monkey
Jan 30, 2002
3,410
212
Vancouver
I said it before, to make a mtb inverted fork as stiff or stiffer than a right-side-up in the important direction/area of torsion, it would have to be heavier. Nowhere near as efficient structure when it comes to torsion, all the money, engineering and weight that is put into rectifying that issue can be used to beef up a conventional fork in fore-aft and lateral rigidity, leaving little real reason for the inverted. When travel goes significantly past 8" bushing overlap gets to be a primary concern and the reverse becomes true.

Since moto right-side up forks usually lack brake arches and both inverted and these rely heavily on the crowns and not so much the steerer (which is sometimes non-existent), it's not a worthy comparison between moto and mtb.

Everything seems to point to that they have addressed this fairly well, but it's going to be a hard sell given how much the other guys have stepped up performance and valving in the last few years. Would ride it if it was given to me (unlike a hanebrink!).
Which leads me to ask why the big manufacturers haven't extended the fork lowers an inch past the dropouts? I know Manitou did it with the Travis but they had that funky reverse arch going. If you take a conventional Boxxer/888/40 and extend everything by an inch, you'd be increasing the overlap and increasing rigidity fore and aft... would barely add on weight.

I had a Hanebrink LT8 back in the day... oh man was a piece....
 

mtg

Green with Envy
Sep 21, 2009
1,862
1,604
Denver, CO
Which leads me to ask why the big manufacturers haven't extended the fork lowers an inch past the dropouts? I know Manitou did it with the Travis but they had that funky reverse arch going. If you take a conventional Boxxer/888/40 and extend everything by an inch, you'd be increasing the overlap and increasing rigidity fore and aft... would barely add on weight.

I had a Hanebrink LT8 back in the day... oh man was a piece....
Fox does on the 36 180
 

Tootrikky

Monkey
Jul 31, 2003
772
0
Mount Vernon
Less unsprung mass/weight? Seems to me that most likely the lowers+stanchions+damping rods on conventional forks weigh more than the stanchions+damping rods on the inverted Emerald by a substantial amount even with that carbon arch thingy on the Emerald. I really like the idea structural component of the fork being tied directly to the chassis. Might be worth a pound of extra weight? My hunch is that is why moto has gone this route. Having one of the heavier and key structural components (the lowers) of the front suspension bouncing up and down with the wheel is a major disadvantage in terms of traction and since it is tied to the chassis via the stanchions tuning in the preferred flex characteristics should be more difficult.
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,397
10,867
AK
Which leads me to ask why the big manufacturers haven't extended the fork lowers an inch past the dropouts? I know Manitou did it with the Travis but they had that funky reverse arch going. If you take a conventional Boxxer/888/40 and extend everything by an inch, you'd be increasing the overlap and increasing rigidity fore and aft... would barely add on weight.

I had a Hanebrink LT8 back in the day... oh man was a piece....
simple, stanchion size. It compensates up to a point. Remember the old manitou xvert carbon had 30mm stanchions.
 

ianjenn

Turbo Monkey
Sep 12, 2006
3,003
708
SLO
simple, stanchion size. It compensates up to a point. Remember the old manitou xvert carbon had 30mm stanchions.
I had a Monster T 2001 variety with X Heavy spring and a ton of oil. SUPER STIFF I was 229LBS spent way to much time in GYM and road a friend X-VERT on his Shockwave. It felt good but way undersprung for me. It was a bit flexy compared to the Monster. Those Monster seals went 2 strong years damn they held a ton of oil in em....maybe that helped?
 

aenema

almost 100% positive
Sep 5, 2008
307
111
Mine arrives tomorrow but my frame is still a couple of weeks out. Maybe I will weigh it and post a picture so people can poo poo it some more, maybe I won't.
 

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
^this...

if my $2200 fork had a leaky seal after 1-2rides...i'd have a conniption.
At least they admit fault, explain the cause, and fix it immediately. Better than some companies who for years continue to spec awful seals and who's attitude is "That's the way it is". No one (should) expect every unit of a product to be perfect, but just that they own up to and fix their mistakes.