[Gridds]

I know. It's just retarded when so many people look at something and in the very first instance slate it because of its looks, instead of taking the time to really look at why it looks like it does and how it performs.

Far too many people buy sh!t that looks 'cool' instead of buying stuff that will give a better ride and make you faster.

If you can make a product that out performs all others then making it look good is just an added bonus.

I will always go for function over fashion or form.

 

[HAB]

Is that different rotor sizes with one adapter I see there? That I like.

 

[IH8Rice]

I know. It's just retarded when so many people look at something and in the very first instance slate it because of its looks, instead of taking the time to really look at why it looks like it does and how it performs.

every other company out there found a way to make their bikes not look like crap. K9 missed that memo i guess

 

[time-bomb]

Is that different rotor sizes with one adapter I see there? That I like.

I am guessing that the different holes have more to do with the drop out setting you select. It looks like you could run any rotor size you want as long as you have the proper adapter and mount it appropriately. I could be wrong, just my best e-guess.

I am liking this bike. It has all the adjustments one could possibly want. The CG looks like it my be higher than several other current offerings (when you at the shock relative the BB) but it isn't bad by any means either. Everything is still tucked into the center of the bike, just higher up than others that have the shock right on top of the BB.

 

[mandown]

The market isn't a uniform conglomerate of consumers. There are a variety of facets to what makes a bike desireable. For simplicity sake, you can divide the market into two camps- 1) buys based on looks, and 2) buys based on performance. Between those two poles is the middle gound most of us fall in, possibly leaning more toward one side than the other. Of course, both of those facets are subjective. What looks good to one person, won't look good to another. What performs well for one rider won't always perform for another.

As far as performance goes, that is tough to measure. It would be nice to say that better performing bikes win more races. We all know that trend is warped by rider skill. Guys like Cedric, Steve, and Sam are gonna rip it up on just about any race frame they swing a leg over, so you can't just hang your hat on the frame that has the most W's. Though if statistics show a trend of W's that is disproportionate, then there may be an indicator that a certain frame truly has an advantage over the competition.


That said...

 

[bullcrew]

BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

Id rock that thing, it has what appears to be great characteristics and I like rearward travel bikes to begin with... It has a ton of pluses and yes its a bit off looking but if it rips then it doesnt matter as the fools your passing dont have very long to stare as you rip past them anywase...

Like I stated before:
Steel front +
Adjustable pedal feedback vis bigger pulley wheels +
Adjustable rotor bracket on rear +
+ some other tuning and maintenance things as bearing pullers and user serviceable and easy to do layout....

Good for them F the looks a bit its not bad looking and if its an image thing its down to and it rips like its supposed to then the asthetics can be dealt with in a bit after it rocks some races and proves itself...

Good for you guys (K9) !

Cant wait to see what transpires, personally I think the Lahar is a ODD looking bike but I wouldnt discredit it for the looks Id like to ride one as well...

 

[4130biker]

I have to say that if they expect people to spend top dollar on a dh frame, assuming it is the holy grail of dh bike engineering, why stop short of making it look like it belongs in 2011?

 

[mandown]

Gotta say, looks in 2D aren't always accurate. My Roscoe and My bud's Flatline look way better in life than in pictures.

 

[no skid marks]

Adjustable pedal feedback vis bigger pulley wheels + I'd prefer to call this adjustable anti squat

I have to say that if they expect people to spend top dollar on a dh frame, assuming it is the holy grail of dh bike engineering, why stop short of making it look like it belongs in 2011?

It's steel main frame, doesn't need to be anything but round, and isn't as maluable as ally to make funky possibly unneeded shapes.
My only dig would be 1.5 headtube not haveing as good a mating surface for the down and top tubes, but I can see the bennefit of using K9s adjustable head angle cups, and I'm sure it's made strong enough.

 

[bullcrew]

It's steel main frame, doesn't need to be anything but round, and isn't as maluable as ally to make funky possibly unneeded shapes.
My only dig would be 1.5 headtube not haveing as good a mating surface for the down and top tubes, but I can see the bennefit of using K9s adjustable head angle cups, and I'm sure it's made strong enough.

Or that LOL


I see it as a win win, they did a good job considering all thats going on and into the design so if it pans out then refinements to bring it along a little bit and there you have it...

Cant wait to see a review or some action shots of this thing....

 

[Dogboy]

Cant wait to see a review or some action shots of this thing....

DIRT mag reviewed it in issue #89 - 1 year ago this month.

 

[P.T.W]

It's steel main frame, doesn't need to be anything but round, and isn't as maluable as ally to make funky possibly unneeded shapes.

Yep the front triangle is made from T45 steel= even tougher an more resilient than good ol 4130.
I do agree it is a lil funky/ old school looking and do take most of the self generated hype that comes with it with a big bag of salt, but at the end of the day if it performs thats all that really matters. Oh do like all the lil extras that K9 offer along with it too.

 

[bullcrew]

DIRT mag reviewed it in issue #89 - 1 year ago this month.

Same geo and all or is this a revised etc????
Ill look it up and see what i can dig up, thanks... Id like a privateer review but that will do for now.

 

[Steve M]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jonesy is an idiot! Not to be negative towards this bike because it seems that Luis@K9 is on top of his game. It's just that every other review that Jones writes claims the next revolution in DH bike design when the next month at Dirt HQ the Orange is the king of mountain, and nothing else ever has or ever will come close according to that guy. And he can't even articulate why. Not to knock the Orange either, but give me a break, Jonesy lost his cred years ago!

While I can see where you're coming from, I think you're taking that a bit far. Jones is:
a) a better rider than all but a few dozen people on the planet - let's not forget he was racing WCs back in the day
b) at least willing and honest enough to point out faults with some bikes
c) arguably not cluey enough about the physics behind bike design to actually have a significant predisposition to what he "thinks" should work well, something myself and most of the other e-experts are extremely prone to doing whether accurate or not
d) stating HIS opinion. My opinion often differs as well, and like you I'm not really sold on his love for the Orange because I don't like the way they ride, but I respect the fact that it seems to work for him.

These bikes are definitely function over form but I think there's something about its form that makes it look the business as well.

I'm pretty sure you can buy these now. I've seen two at the last two races I've been at, both ridden by privateers.

Everything I've read about and seen of this bike is amazing, from how it's designed, the philosophy, its geometry, how it's been tested and researched right up to the materials it's made of.

K9 DH001-S = WIN.



LA > DW.

Luis may know a lot about bikes but he also has a number of strongly held opinions that are IMO incomplete or incorrect. I have actually met the guy a few years ago and he tried to convince me that my bike at the time (2004 SGS) suffered from pedal feedback even when coasting - if you haven't worked out that freehub overrun will take care of that except at the most mathematically ridiculous shaft speeds then chances are you don't really have a "complete" model of how a bike works for starters. From reading his tech columns in Dirt I'm also not sold on his reasoning behind rearwards axle paths (stability at bottom out? Who the hell crashes a bike due to looping out when it's bottomed out?). His theories on pedalling efficiency seem to contradict everything else used in the automotive (ie: real) world as far as anti-squat goes too. All that said, from the amount of DAQ testing they claim to do, I'd be pretty surprised if their leverage rate wasn't pretty dialled. I'd like to ride one just to see what it's like, at the very least the fact that it's adjustable, should have a good leverage rate and looks like it'd pedal at least reasonably well should stand it in pretty good stead.

It's a bicycle, is nothing sacred, safe from marketing/lies. Yes, bicycles are sacred and need to be protected from those dirty liars. Otherwise kittens die.
A bike should look fast because it is. A rider will look best by being fast or whatever other performance aspect his bike is designed for. Take dirt jumping, not many fashion bikes there, just practical simple steel hardtails. Are you f**king serious?! Dirtjump bikes at the moment are THE most fashion-driven things out there! The current trend happens to be absolute minimalism and making everything as small as possible whether it's necessary/practical or not...

Why is DH different? I'm sick of the pajarma wearing mentality, I wish this sport would die, so the big marketing companies would piss off, and leave the industry with the dedicated riders and geeks that take up the challenge of designing and building cool logical performance bikes. Um, it already did that, like 10 years ago remember... Cheeta went broke and disappeared (Cortina too perhaps? Though they're still sort of around as CR1, do they still make frames?), Cannondale went bust, GT/Schwinn went bust, Specialized stopped sponsoring downhill riders entirely, all the "big marketing companies" like Pepsi and Mountain Dew and Grundig pulled out of the sport entirely. As for the "pyjama wearing mentality" - whatever, try telling surfers they're just being trend whores by wearing Rip Curl/Billabong/Quiksilver clothes, or snowboarders the same for wearing Burton gear.
I'd by one nearly just because it's not got stupid fat obese tubes, I don't choose fat women, why would I choose a fat bike?

Didn't you own a Lahar? As far as "stupid fat obese tubes" go, I can't think of anything fatter... oh wait but THAT one was justified, just not all the other bikes built using the same principles!

 

[no skid marks]

While I can see where you're coming from, I think you're taking that a bit far. Jones is:
a) a better rider than all but a few dozen people on the planet - let's not forget he was racing WCs back in the day
b) at least willing and honest enough to point out faults with some bikes
c) arguably not cluey enough about the physics behind bike design to actually have a significant predisposition to what he "thinks" should work well, something myself and most of the other e-experts are extremely prone to doing whether accurate or not
d) stating HIS opinion. My opinion often differs as well, and like you I'm not really sold on his love for the Orange because I don't like the way they ride, but I respect the fact that it seems to work for him.



Luis may know a lot about bikes but he also has a number of strongly held opinions that are IMO incomplete or incorrect. I have actually met the guy a few years ago and he tried to convince me that my bike at the time (2004 SGS) suffered from pedal feedback even when coasting - if you haven't worked out that freehub overrun will take care of that except at the most mathematically ridiculous shaft speeds then chances are you don't really have a "complete" model of how a bike works for starters. From reading his tech columns in Dirt I'm also not sold on his reasoning behind rearwards axle paths (stability at bottom out? Who the hell crashes a bike due to looping out when it's bottomed out?). His theories on pedalling efficiency seem to contradict everything else used in the automotive (ie: real) world as far as anti-squat goes too. All that said, from the amount of DAQ testing they claim to do, I'd be pretty surprised if their leverage rate wasn't pretty dialled. I'd like to ride one just to see what it's like, at the very least the fact that it's adjustable, should have a good leverage rate and looks like it'd pedal at least reasonably well should stand it in pretty good stead.



Didn't you own a Lahar? As far as "stupid fat obese tubes" go, I can't think of anything fatter... oh wait but THAT one was justified, just not all the other bikes built using the same principles!

When bottoming out, would seem to me to be one of the most logical times to have the bike being stable. When do you bottom? when you've hit an object hard enough to compress the suspension, when would you want the bike it's amost stable? When your hitting objects hard enough to compress the suspension, be it from big frontal impacts, or from drops, or jumps. Look at Bender off that stupid big drop, got sideways pretty quick, picture him on a 20ft long bike(hypertheticly speaking).
The Lahar was the equivalent of a thin chick that got pregnant. It had a Rohloff in the frame with what was a logical way of mounting it and keeping the frame light, strong and stiff. and looks were obviously not the reason I rode one.
I don't ride or look much at dirt jump bikes, was just an easy example I chose, but still, It's not court dude, my point was fairly obvious, changing debate is daft. You should have done law instead. But enlighten me, show me a top of the crop curret dirt jump bike that is not made purely for performance.
I'm sure I recall you laying sh!t pretty thick on Jones/Dirt reviews in the past.
You've spent the time learning and improving your knowledge engineering wise, you have the passion, design a fricken bike FFS, you talk the talk enough.
I thought the K9s virtual pivot point was roughly what you concidered ideal, isn't it?

 

[Sandwich]

His theories on pedalling efficiency seem to contradict everything else used in the automotive (ie: real) world as far as anti-squat goes too.

I hate to re-enter this sh.tshow of a thread, but what does a 40lb bike with 200lb rider have to do with a 4000lb car and dragster like acceleration? This is something that has always bothered me with DW's explanation of anti-squat...do people really sit there and lean back as the bike moves forward, like one would in a car or motorcycle, or do they lean forward as they pedal like %95 of the riders I've ever seen?

I couldn't find any of Luis's discussions on pedaling/efficiency, so I couldn't review what he said.

 

[no skid marks]

I hate to re-enter this sh.tshow of a thread, but what does a 40lb bike with 200lb rider have to do with a 4000lb car and dragster like acceleration? This is something that has always bothered me with DW's explanation of anti-squat...do people really sit there and lean back as the bike moves forward, like one would in a car or motorcycle, or do they lean forward as they pedal like %95 of the riders I've ever seen?

I couldn't find any of Luis's discussions on pedaling/efficiency, so I couldn't review what he said.

Anti squat is used to stop the suspension working as much, so the bike won't bob, and will bite into the ground better, and be more efficient as the down force of the riders legs will go into rotating the cranks(pulling chain), and not into bouncing the bike.
I think suspension performance on a DH bike is far more important than worrying about anti squat, but still shouldn't be overlooked in design. good point though, a car is not very relivant, but what the auto industry has learnt is still the biggest wealth of knowledge.

 

[top_dog]

No but the mass transfers rearwards under acceleration. Just like it transfers forwards when you brake.

 

[4130biker]

It's steel main frame, doesn't need to be anything but round, and isn't as maluable as ally to make funky possibly unneeded shapes.
My only dig would be 1.5 headtube not haveing as good a mating surface for the down and top tubes, but I can see the bennefit of using K9s adjustable head angle cups, and I'm sure it's made strong enough.

I guess I should have been more specific- I actually really like the look of chromolly bike frames (4130biker). I can't wait for the "melted frame" look to go away! I guess what makes it look somewhat out of date to me are the giant rocker arm(s), and the plate gussets at the headtube. But maybe those are the best solution to the design that they're going for.

I'm not saying I could do better on my first try , but I really think with a bit of time they could make the same design look a lot better, that's all.

 

[Ian Collins]

don't wanna be a prick but how is that "moto inspired"?

 

[Steve M]

When bottoming out, would seem to me to be one of the most logical times to have the bike being stable. When do you bottom? when you've hit an object hard enough to compress the suspension, when would you want the bike it's amost stable? When your hitting objects hard enough to compress the suspension, be it from big frontal impacts, or from drops, or jumps. Look at Bender off that stupid big drop, got sideways pretty quick, picture him on a 20ft long bike(hypertheticly speaking).
The Lahar was the equivalent of a thin chick that got pregnant. It had a Rohloff in the frame with what was a logical way of mounting it and keeping the frame light, strong and stiff. and looks were obviously not the reason I rode one.
I don't ride or look much at dirt jump bikes, was just an easy example I chose, but still, It's not court dude, my point was fairly obvious, changing debate is daft. You should have done law instead. But enlighten me, show me a top of the crop curret dirt jump bike that is not made purely for performance.
I'm sure I recall you laying sh!t pretty thick on Jones/Dirt reviews in the past.
You've spent the time learning and improving your knowledge engineering wise, you have the passion, design a fricken bike FFS, you talk the talk enough.
I thought the K9s virtual pivot point was roughly what you concidered ideal, isn't it?

How often have you hucked 40ft cliffs? Me either, so let's leave that comparison out of it. How many times have you gotten thrown off line laterally at the same time that you've managed to bottom the bike out? Personally that just seems like a non-issue to me, kind of devising a solution to which there is no known problem.

Current dirtjump bike that isn't made purely for performance - IMO pretty well all of them, but that's just going off on a tangent. Yep I've had my criticisms of Jones' reviews in the past, but going so far as to call the guy an "idiot" is a bit much IMO. In fairness he's made a significant effort to improve his reviews over the years.

There are about a hundred reasons why I'm not about to design a bike, most of them involve my love for actually riding them more than working on them, hence why all my money gets spent on having a bike and riding it rather than trying to develop something that's arbitrarily better than anything anyone else has made - not that I'm even convinced I could do a better job as far as the big picture goes. I certainly don't have the R&D or manufacturing means available to me to produce something lighter, stronger or with better tolerances than what's on the market today. I could go for the novelty factor of a gearbox bike or something but at the end of the day I don't care enough. I get stuck into internet discussions because the physics interest me enough to warrant me spending a few minutes typing, not a few years designing and building a frame.

I hate to re-enter this sh.tshow of a thread, but what does a 40lb bike with 200lb rider have to do with a 4000lb car and dragster like acceleration? This is something that has always bothered me with DW's explanation of anti-squat...do people really sit there and lean back as the bike moves forward, like one would in a car or motorcycle, or do they lean forward as they pedal like %95 of the riders I've ever seen?

I couldn't find any of Luis's discussions on pedaling/efficiency, so I couldn't review what he said.

It's not so much geometric weight transfer that occurs in bicycles, nor any kind of motorised vehicles, but if you accelerate forwards by pedalling then regardless of whether the rider leans forwards, the load on the rear wheel will fluctuate unless the rider can time his weight movements to coincide and cancel out the movement of the rear suspension. If you ride a bike up the street and concentrate on pedalling with as little bobbing as possible then you'll probably find that you can actually reduce it significantly just by intuitively moving your body to compensate and keeping the pedals at a very constant RPM, but in my experience pedalling like that feels weird and definitely restricts your power output a bit.

 

[- seb]

That thing does look like a joke but I seem to remember Dirt Mag giving it a super good review, and Steve Jones seems to know how to dish out a proper thrashing and honest feedback.

It's a poor image. It looks the nuts in the flesh, in a better colour scheme.

 

[- seb]

I'm pretty sure you can buy these now. I've seen two at the last two races I've been at, both ridden by privateers.

I might be wrong, but I think what you've seen are the team riders (they're certainly all that I've noticed on the bikes). I asked at the National Champs this weekend when they'd be available to buy and was told

"Pretty much now. As in 'from today'."

 

[Gridds]

Yep, available to buy now.

Someone in the UK has just got this bad boy up and running:

Taken from here

 

[trib]

that is a good looking bike. looks very purposeful

 

[HAB]

That looks a lot better than it did as a rendered frame only. I didn't think it was that bad before, but that's purty. In a simplistic, industrial sort of way.

 

[trib]

ha, my initial response was 'looks purty'. Evidently purty is a specific look linked closely to purpose driven design

 

[Pelle]

Looks pretty stealth and fast. Slack too.
Would love to try one.

 

[dw]

Anti squat is used to stop the suspension working as much, so the bike won't bob, and will bite into the ground better, and be more efficient as the down force of the riders legs will go into rotating the cranks(pulling chain), and not into bouncing the bike.
I think suspension performance on a DH bike is far more important than worrying about anti squat, but still shouldn't be overlooked in design. good point though, a car is not very relivant, but what the auto industry has learnt is still the biggest wealth of knowledge.

Anti squat is an incredibly beneficial attribute of a high performing DH suspension. I am riding a prototype dw-DHR with a 13.4 BB height. I can throw in pedal strokes in the rocks, wherever I want. The BB could actually go lower I think. This would not be possible without anti-squat. The same things that I do from an anti-squat standpoint also help give better traction over square edges and let us optimize shock damping for bumps, not for pedaling.

Back in 2008 I wrote a little bit on the subject on my blog (sorry no time to update recently but hopefully soon..)

http://dw-link.blogspot.com/2008/09/anti-squat-in-suspensions-has-become.html

Enjoy!

 

[mandown]

want

 

[Sandwich]

now I want a fedora and a martini.

 

[bansheefr]

that bike looks straight out of 1998 when banshee screams where cool.

The first year for the Banshee Scream was 2003...

The K9 frame looks much better built up and I'm sure it rides great. I can only imagine how difficult it will be to get one in the US if you really wanted one.

 

[Gridds]

The first year for the Banshee Scream was 2003...

The K9 frame looks much better built up and I'm sure it rides great. I can only imagine how difficult it will be to get one in the US if you really wanted one.

No more difficult than anywhere in the UK - just buy direct from K9 and pay a bit for importing it yourself. Job done.

 

[xy9ine]

I am riding a prototype dw-DHR with a 13.4 BB height. I can throw in pedal strokes in the rocks, wherever I want. The BB could actually go lower I think.

that's a really good point there - the ability to hammer a slammed dh bike through the rough without getting launched by pedal strikes is a great attribute.

 

[NoUseForAName]

now I want a fedora and a martini.

Fez..

 

[monkeyfcuker]

Sick looking bike for sure, would seriously love a go!

Bos front and back, drooooool!!

 

[- seb]

They have a new teflon-paint too, supposedly the mud etc won't stick to it. The one I felt was super slippy for sure!

 

[trib]

They have a new teflon-paint too, supposedly the mud etc won't stick to it. The one I felt was super slippy for sure!

genius

 

[Pslide]

They have a new teflon-paint too, supposedly the mud etc won't stick to it. The one I felt was super slippy for sure!

Seriously? That's a great idea.

 

[UiUiUiUi]

soooo reviving a dead thread

but since the silencer seems to stay non existent
i need something for the time being

anybody got some more real world info about the K9 DH001?